Do Comic Writers get TOO MUCH credit?

[thefreakytiki]

A great article/Op-Ed over at Comic Book Resources/Robot 6 got me thinking... Do Writers get TOO MUCH credit for creating comics?  Why do most fan's list Watchmen as Alan Moore's Watchmen?


Here is the article...


How artists’ contributions to the creation of comics are overlooked

Since the dawn of the medium, comic books largely have been the creation of writers and artists working hand-in-hand to produce the characters, stories, titles and universes you follow each week. Recently, however, lawsuits by comic creators against publishers — and sometimes other creators — have raised the question of where, when and how a comic is truly created. Are they the product of the writer, with the artist simply tasked to illustrate the story based on instructions laid out in a script or outline? Or is it a communal effort, with writer and artist both providing unique contributions to the creation of the character and setting, each serving as a storyteller in the planning, coordination and draftsmanship of the actual comic pages? In recent years, comics have become a writer-centric medium, for better or worse, but artists continue to play a crucial, if sometimes overlooked, role in the design of characters and transformation of the writer’s scripts into, you know, comics.

In an interview with ICv2.com, Howard Chaykin relayed a story about how an unnamed writer views an artist’s contribution as “absolutely nothing to do with the creative process in comics.” “I am of the belief that the artist does 50 percent of the ‘writing’ in comic books,” said Chaykin, who’s worked as a writer and artist for decades. “I think the guy is plum crazy. It staggered me in its limited understanding of what comic books are about.”


Some might see this as referencing the ongoing dispute between Jack Kirby’s heirs and Marvel over the ownership of characters he created or co-created, but what Chaykin is getting at isn’t ownership. He’s speaking solely in terms of crediting the writer and artist equally in the creation of the book. He uses another comic currently in the headlines to make his point.

“[Watchmen is] always being referred to as Alan Moore’s Watchmen, as if Dave Gibbons had nothing to do with it,” he said. “But the sensibility of that book would have been an entirely different experience if someone besides Dave had drawn it, and I don’t think that Dave gets near the credit and props he deserves. I think that it is important to acknowledge the fact that comics is a visual narrative medium in which much of the ‘writing’ is provided by the artist who visualizes the material.”

The “who” that Chaykin mentions in calling Watchmen “Alan Moore’s” isn’t aimed solely at publishers, but at the world at large: creators, press and fans. Think about this: Grant Morrison’s All-Star Superman. Is it accurate to attribute the series solely to Morrison and discount artist Frank Quitely? Sure, it might be shorthand to refer only to the writer, but it’s an idea that can, and does, get perpetuated to increase the perceived stature of the writer in the work and diminish that of the artist.

I’ll admit that sometimes it’s not easy to give proper credit to a work. Writers have generally have longer tenures than artists on continuing series, making it difficult to correctly attribute the larger work to a single artist. How would you credit Uncanny X-Men in the 1980s? It’s easy to call it “Chris Claremont’s Uncanny X-Men” given the number of artists who worked on the book. But honestly, were those artists superfluous, or did they each make contributions that made the work as a whole better?

In most cases, the attribution of a comic solely to the writer isn’t made intentionally to overlook the artist. Publishers, fans and the press are each guilty of falling into this trap. Take, for example, this interview with writer Rick Remender about Uncanny X-Force published last week at Comic Book Resources. In the original version of the article,  no artist is mentioned nor credited in the captions below the images. In the course of writing this piece I made the CBR editors aware, and they’ve since corrected it, attributing covers to Jerome Opena and interiors to Mike McKone.

When I asked CBR Executive Producer Jonah Weiland about this situation, he was upfront. “It was simply an oversight,” he said. “A mention of the artist absolutely should have been made, and once you brought it to my attention, it was fixed.” He went on to say that it’s a common problem in the comics press, and CBR has editorial guidelines in place to prevent oversights like this from happening regularly.

“Too often when a comic writer on a comic is interviewed, the focus becomes squarely on him or her. Sometimes, we — CBR and the comics press in general — get so wrapped up in what’s being said about the story that we forget there’s an artist that brings that story to life,” he explained. “When we’re focusing on a specific storyline, our policy is to always include the name of the artist. This is especially true when we have interior pages for the comic being discussed — if the artist isn’t mentioned in the body of the article, he or she should be mentioned in the captions beneath the artwork. It’s part of our editorial guidelines and style guide. Likewise, if an artist is being interviewed, the writer of the book should be mentioned.”

Weiland is the first to admit that CBR “sometimes drops the ball on this,” and he doesn’t want to give excuses. “Giving full and proper credit in our comics coverage is something we constantly strive to be on top of and if we miss it, we appreciate it when our readers point out our oversight,” he said. “The contributions artists make with comics is equal to that of writers and we must, as an industry, ensure they’re not overlooked or taken for granted.


Ryan Ottley, Robert Kirkman and Cory Walker (Photo by Jonah Weiland)

As I said earlier, it’s an easy trap to fall into. Take this press release from Robert Kirkman’s Skybound announcing a new Guarding the Globe series. In it, Kirkman is credited as the sole creator of Invincible, Guarding the Globe and other properties when in fact they were co-creations with artists like Cory Walker and Ryan Ottley, among others.

Is it merely an innocent oversight? Surely. Walker is listed as co-creator and co-owner in every Invincible publication since day one, and several previous press releases Skybound and Image have listed Walker as co-creator. I reached out to Skybound, Image Comics and Walker to speak about the press release and the perceived trend, but each gave no comment. I did, however, speak with Image Comics’ co-founder Erik Larsen, a vocal proponent of creators’ rights, who offered a possible explanation.

“I think it’s just a matter of expediency and simplification,” he said. “The writers control the properties in most cases. The ideas start with them. It’s easier and less cumbersome to say ‘Robert Kirkman’s Invincible shows up in Buggy Justice #3′ than ‘Robert Kirkman, Cory Walker and Ryan Ottley’s Invincible …’”

He does admit that in the instance of the press release, and as a general rule, it’s not “necessarily the right thing to do.”

“The artists are full creators, and I know I do take offense when I see ‘Stan Lee’s Spider-Man or Stan Lee’s Fantastic Four,’” Larsen said. “But I must admit — I’m as guilty of saying it as anybody, especially given that the writer is frequently my point of contact.”

Why are artists most commonly the victim? What if the oversight went in the opposite direction, giving deference to artists in the shorthand attribution: Jack Kirby’s Avengers. Cory Walker’s Invincible. Steve Ditko’s Spider-Man. Remember, this isn’t attributing ownership but merely creation.

Regardless of who’s credited, the question becomes whether this tendency is even an issue. Some of the people I interviewed argued that it’s not, and this is merely an attempt to sensationalize innocent mistakes and lump them together with contested legal issues. But I’d argue that even if these are mole hills rather than mountains, it’s still a trend with ramifications. When oversights are published, they can perpetuate the inaccurate crediting of creations that could lead to subsequent readers-turned-writers to carry it forward into their own works. Historians call it “book wheel authority” or the “knowledge cycle,” where information is iteratively repeated and passed as fact whether it is incorrect or not. It’s the same reason some persistent rumor have been accepted as fact until an actual accurate account of the information is brought forward.

Pulling back from those nebulous questions, artist Cully Hamner posted his own grounded vantage point on the contributions of the artist. Remember, Hamner is the co-creator of the Red miniseries that spawned a hit movie, and he wrote and drew the comic-book sequel. He also redesigned DC Comics’ Blue Beetle, for which the publisher has repeatedly given him credit in the character’s subsequent appearances.

“Young artists take note: You are doing more than filling a shopping list,” Hamner stated, in reference to the Chaykin interview. “It is as much your job to create the story your reader ends up reading as it is the writer’s. You are partners.”

Hamner directed his quote at the artists, but the tendency to credit writers over artists in the creation of comics is a trend that is carried out, mostly subconsciously, by creators, publishers, press and fans. I’ll be the first to admit I’m guilty of it as well: in an interview about Star Wars: Blood Ties – Boba Fett Is Dead for Newsarama, I failed to even bring up artist Chris Scalf. I only realized my mistake while writing this article today; it’s a lesson learned and hopefully a lesson I’ll remember next time I talk about comics.

To borrow from the principles of the Twelve-Step Program, at the end of the day if we can come together and admit the problem of recognition of artists’ contributions to comics, it’s the first step to solving the problem.

http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2012/05/how-artists-contributions-to-the-creation-of-comics-are-overlooked/



the Tiki

[JimN]

Do Comic Writers get TOO MUCH credit?

Yes, they do...

... and now I'll actually read the op/ed piece.

Edit: I read the piece and it's quite good. Thanks for posting that Tiki.

[SDAL]

I think a generality is that the writer is the geneses of the idea, but how often do we hear an artist or writer say they asked for something in the script, and the artist did something different, and it worked out better? It seems it happens a lot, that writers know to leave visual storytelling to the artists. The mention of Watchmen reminds me of the story told about Dave Gibbons highlighting the relevant couple of lines in Alan Moore's excessively long scripts. If we had no Alan Moore, would we have had such a complex and mature work, but without Dave Gibbons, and his skill in telling the story, would we care as much?

[evaD]

I think this happens in every collaborative medium. How often do you know a director's name for a movie, but have no idea of the writer or writers who worked on it? It doesn't make it right, but I think it's human nature to simplify. In the 90's I had no idea who wrote Jim Lee's WildC.A.T.s. The average person thinks Stan Lee drew Spider-man. I've said it before, but in comics, I think the artist(s) is more important than the writer. Not because the pictures are more important than the words, but because the pictures are what make it a comic. Also, as I've said before, you are more likely to see an artist become a writer than vice-versa. It's the artists who have a greater grasp of visual storytelling. The artform is collaborative, and there is a give and take where it becomes difficult to tell who contributed what, if done well, but ultimately I believe it falls to the artists to make sure the story moves along, is paced appropriately, and does what a sequential graphic story needs to do. Further, I believe, if writers decided to leave the medium, and just walk away, leaving only artists behind the medium would survive. I don't believe the reverse is true.

[JimN]

I think a generality is that the writer is the geneses of the idea, but how often do we hear an artist or writer say they asked for something in the script, and the artist did something different, and it worked out better? It seems it happens a lot, that writers know to leave visual storytelling to the artists. The mention of Watchmen reminds me of the story told about Dave Gibbons highlighting the relevant couple of lines in Alan Moore's excessively long scripts. If we had no Alan Moore, would we have had such a complex and mature work, but without Dave Gibbons, and his skill in telling the story, would we care as much?

Perhaps not. At the very least, we'd have a very different work and perhaps a far less successful work. Gibbons' mastery of the medium and contributions to Watchmen made him it's co-author in a very true sense and his work is an essential part of watchmen's success.

[RickV]

That is the lasting ramification of the popularity of Sandman.

[Kenney]

I think this happens in every collaborative medium. How often do you know a director's name for a movie, but have no idea of the writer or writers who worked on it? It doesn't make it right, but I think it's human nature to simplify.

Sure. Same thing happens in hiphop. Outside of the superstar producers (Dre, Neptunes, Timbaland, etc), people don't know who produces the beats to their favorite songs, which are a very big reason why those songs are their favorite songs to begin with.

I do find it irritating now that Watchmen is thought of as ALAN MOORE with dave gibbons. And I've been as guilty as anyone when it comes to this.

[evaD]

Sure. Same thing happens in hiphop. Outside of the superstar producers (Dre, Neptunes, Timbaland, etc), people don't know who produces the beats to their favorite songs, which are a very big reason why those songs are their favorite songs to begin with.

Oh, I was talking about collaborative artforms.

Kidding. I just couldn't resist.

[InspectorSpacetime]

most writers have a handful of books coming out every month and very few artist can even draw 12 issues a year anymore.

but on the bright side artist can bring in money with original art and commissions. plus its easier to burn out on a writer and figure out all his characteristic.

[JimN]

Oh, I was talking about collaborative artforms.

Kidding. I just couldn't resist.

 

[Dean S.]

Oh, I absolutely think that writers get too much credit.  Average fans (not us uber-fans on this board) are generally uncomfortable talking about art, so they identify with the writer.  And publishers are much better served to hype writers who can affect 50+ issues per year versus artists who can only do ~10.  I know we all make fun of Marvel's "Architects", but those guys affect ~200 issues per year.  If you wanted to hype the artists who touch that many issues you'd have to talk about 20 different artists (and that's before we even get to the colorists and inkers).

And, I do think that once you get below the elite level writers out there, most of these guys are pretty fungible.  There's nothing I see in their "ideas" or their dialog or the flow of their stories that seems any better than half the people on this board could do.  

But, but, but.....I also think it's a mistake to assume that the visuals of the comic are 100% the artist.  Some writers are very particular about how they want things to look and have great ideas.  Remember Batman #5?  Everyone was jabbering about how the pages turned upside down, but I actually thought that took away from the rest of the visuals in the issue (just because it was such a noisy design element).  One really cool thing was how Batman had a smashed lens in his cowl, so you could see one eyeball.  That meant that he could run around as Batman, with the cowl up, and still get human emotion on his face.  

Guess what??  The smashed lens was Scott Snyder's idea.  And Snyder does that a LOT.  He spends as much time on Google Images as a lot of artists.  Every artist he works with mentions it.

And, we all know Alan Moore does much the same thing where he tells the artist how he wants the panels to look in great detail.  But....I also think guys like Moore and Snyder are operating at a wholly different level than most writers.  They're the guys when I read the story I don't just think "Cool!" I think "Wow!  I never would have been able to write that."

[Tempo House]

Why do most fan's list Watchmen as Alan Moore's Watchmen?

A couple of quick points:

1. It is not a good idea to center this discussion around Alan Moore. The man has a very strong and distinct voice in every aspect of his writing that comes through no matter which personification of art perfection is at the helm guiding the execution, and perhaps even giving him valuable feedback. That's just a special case.  There are a few others like that .. Grant Morrison, clearly, Neil Gaiman, etc.  But if we're going to debate writer vs artist, we need to focus on more typical or common cases.

2. Assuming that the role of a writer and artist are differentiated in a piece of work (a big if, admittedly, with a whole bunch of grey areas on its own), there is an inherent asymmetry between the relationship of writers and artists to the work that needs to be acknowledged: if the writing is good, the art can elevate it to a whole new level, or it can bring it down with a crash. That's why art is so important. It defines what we see. If the writing is bad, however, no amount of artistic wizardry will turn crap into gold. It just is not possible.  So is it not fair that when what is produced is not upto par, the responsibility is placed typically on the writer than the artist? It cuts both ways.

This asymmetry, BTW, holds in many many forms of art where there is a division between creation and execution, most obvious ones being music and films ... if the material you are starting out with is crap, there is nothing you can do about it no matter how hard you rock, how inventive your arrangements are or how much you dazzle the viewers with special effects and your continuous steadycam shots ... it just is not going to happen (although, unfairly, the director or the performer will typically be blamed for the underlying bad writing in those cases, but that's another story).

[Julian Lytle]

Sure. Same thing happens in hiphop. Outside of the superstar producers (Dre, Neptunes, Timbaland, etc), people don't know who produces the beats to their favorite songs, which are a very big reason why those songs are their favorite songs to begin with.

But at least in terms of music the producer makes more from song that the artist will ever hope to unless the artist is also a credited producer.



Oh and EvaD don't think I didn't see that  

[Tempo House]

That is the lasting ramification of the popularity of Sandman.

One thing about Sandman, and IMO, one of the things that elevated the series, was the rotating set of artists (most of them excellent choices), presumably depending on the visual effect that Gaiman is going for in his story. Vertigo and Gaiman were not shying away from the differing look and feel in each arc/story, they were embracing it.

So it is easier to see how Sandman was truly Neil Gaiman's.

[JimN]

A couple of quick points:

1. It is not a good idea to center this discussion around Alan Moore. The man has a very strong and distinct voice in every aspect of his writing that comes through no matter which personification of art perfection is at the helm guiding the execution, and perhaps even giving him valuable feedback. That's just a special case.  There are a few others like that .. Grant Morrison, clearly, Neil Gaiman, etc.  But if we're going to debate writer vs artist, we need to focus on more typical or common cases.

I disagree. Moore's voice IS strong and distinct but he's hardly alone in that department and no matter how good he is, he still relies on artists to visualize his work, just like every other comics writer that doesn't draw his own stories. In other words, he's not a unique case, just a very good writer who collaborates with artists to create comics.

2. Assuming that the role of a writer and artist are differentiated in a piece of work (a big if, admittedly, with a whole bunch of grey areas on its own), there is an inherent asymmetry between the relationship of writers and artists to the work that needs to be acknowledged: if the writing is good, the art can elevate it to a whole new level, or it can bring it down with a crash. That's why art is so important. It defines what we see. If the writing is bad, however, no amount of artistic wizardry will turn crap into gold. It just is not possible.  So is it not fair that when what is produced is not upto par, the responsibility is placed typically on the writer than the artist? It cuts both ways.

I'm not quite following you. I may be wrong but I think it's safe to say the following 3 "equations" are essentially true:

Bad writing + bad art = bad comics.
Good art + bad writing = 1/2 good comic
Good writing + bad art = 1/2 good comic

IF we accept those 3 things to be true than it seems to me that reflects an equal responsibility for the quality of the comic. It may be true that no amount of artistic wizardry will turn a poorly written comic into gold but I don't think that's any more accurate than the inverse statement (no amount of writing wizardry is going to turn a poorly drawn comic into gold either).

Of course, a lot of that depends on how an individual feels about the writing or art but I don't think there's an asymmetry present that should lead to the writer getting more credit for good work or more blame for poor work. Credit and blame fall where they deserve to fall, based on the "performance" of each participant in the creative process.

[Jeppe]

That is the lasting ramification of the popularity of Sandman.

I think it's too easy to link it to one work, like Sandman.
Reading through The Comics Journal Library 6: The Writers gives a pretty good picture of the development of "the writer" as the main man in mainstream comics, a trend beginning in  the 1970s and gaining momentum with some of the milestone works of the 1980s and the early 1990s. Neil Gaiman and Grant Morrison might be extreme examples of it, but earlier writers like Marv Wolfman, Denny O'Neil, Gerry Conway, and, of course, Alan Moore were certainly also influential on the general focus on writers (often at the expense of artists).

[Jeppe]

2. Assuming that the role of a writer and artist are differentiated in a piece of work (a big if, admittedly, with a whole bunch of grey areas on its own), there is an inherent asymmetry between the relationship of writers and artists to the work that needs to be acknowledged: if the writing is good, the art can elevate it to a whole new level, or it can bring it down with a crash. That's why art is so important. It defines what we see. If the writing is bad, however, no amount of artistic wizardry will turn crap into gold. It just is not possible.  So is it not fair that when what is produced is not upto par, the responsibility is placed typically on the writer than the artist? It cuts both ways.

That seems to be a fairly subjective evaluation, and I'm certain, since it has come up around here before, that many people would disagree with you

[Farrell]

No.

And didn't we just have this thread?

When talking about comics over the span of their creation, artists are given precedence nearly every time.  Let's do an experiment.  Name as many EC artists as you can.  Now name even ONE writer.

This didn't end decades ago, either.  There are still legions of comics fans who follow artists, talk about artists, judge a book by how much they like the art, waaay before writers even enter the conversation.

The fact that there are only a few writers who are ever used as examples in this arguments is testament to the fact that the argument is unnecessary.  It's "Alan's Moore's Watchmen" to marketing people because his name is recognized to a degree very few comics creator's are.  Long before JH Williams wrote Batwoman, I still heard the book referred to as "JHW's Batwoman," and it's not like Rucka is a slouch or isn't, you know, a published novelist or anything.  Same thing happens in movies all the time.  It was "Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas," and many people don't even realize he didn't direct that film.  That's just advertising designed to evoke Pavlovian responses, and not too much should be read into it.

[Tempo House]

I'm not quite following you. I may be wrong but I think it's safe to say the following 3 "equations" are essentially true:

Bad writing + bad art = bad comics.
Good art + bad writing = 1/2 good comic
Good writing + bad art = 1/2 good comic

No, what I am saying is:

Good art + bad writing = bad comic (a good looking one perhaps, and you can appreciate the art that was wasted, but overall, a comic that is really not worth the reader's time).

When you see a movie with crappy writing that has awesome special effects, do you feel like you saw an ok movie or do you feel like you just wasted two hours of your life you're never getting back? I personally feel the latter. (And this applies to fun, bubble gum movies as well, the same way it applies to pop songs -- there is good writing and bad writing in fun movies and pop songs as well.)

I understand that I may be in the minority among comic readership to see things this way.

[JimN]

No.

And didn't we just have this thread?

When talking about comics over the span of their creation, artists are given precedence nearly every time.  Let's do an experiment.  Name as many EC artists as you can.  Now name even ONE writer.

Harvey Kurtzman!