so what is an independent comic?

ztoical

It was mentioned on this thread that the what comic are you reading thread seems to be focused on independent comics. Looking through the last couple of posts on the that thread the only independent title that really jumped out at me was "the last bus". So it got me thinking - what exactly do people class as an
"independent" and what as a so called "mainstream"? this comes up alot in Manga with people very divided over wither the OEL mangas [original english langauge] should count as real manga or not as they are not japanese in origin [theres quite a number of very heated blog and forum posts on this around the web]

Looking through the what comic are you reading thread I tend to see alot of titles like Fables, Y the last man, 100 bullets, the Umbrella academy etc come up alot and I'm wondering do people see these as mainstream or independent comics? Do people class publishers such as IDW, Dark Horse, Oini, Slave labour graphics, Top Shelf, first second books, fantagraphics and so on as independent, mainstream or something else? Hands up who thinks of mainstream being only Marvel and DC or being only superhero themed books?

What about manga? is that a totally different kettle of fish? Or BD's [bandes dessinees or french comics]? I would never count BD's as independent as there are some massive BD publishers in France that make the likes of Marvel look small.

Saruwatari

Well, obviously Marvel and DC are mainstream. I'd probably go as far as saying Dark Horse and Image are as well, though both were fairly indy only a few years back now...

Fysh

Heh, talk about cat among the pigeons. For my money independent means not through an established publishing house, but that's just me. There seems to be a lot of support for the idea that "mainstream = superheroes" but that's inherited from the north-american view, I think. To me certainly, mainstream comics encompasses the likes of Tintin, The Beano, The Dandy (or Dandy Xtreme as it's known now), 2000AD, alongside anything from any of the big publishers (which includes all the ones you mentioned and a whole bunch more). I'd consider the likes of Fantagraphics and Drawn & Quarterly alternative rather than independent, but just like in music there's an assumption that mainstream and independent really are reliable indicators of the content whereas the reality is anything but.

Jack B. Badd

Fysh wrote: »

but just like in music there's an assumption that mainstream and independent really are reliable indicators of the content whereas the reality is anything but.

Damn him, Fysh just stole my argument while I was typing my post and still managed to put it more concisely than I.

I'd ask for a definition of "independent" in relation to comics but I get the feeling the answer would annoy me as much as service providers' definition of "unlimited" :rolleyes: As far as I'm concerned "independent" is independent of the major publishing houses (not just Marvel/DC).

magwea

I see three different meanings of independent being used in comics: simply as a synonymous self-publishers or small solo boutique publishers; as Saruwatari said anything that isn't from the big two and might include Image and DH whish is probably the most common view in comics; any comic that doesn't have men in tights, the comics mainstream in the north American tradition. Most of the time its easy enough to tell which meaning independent is being used, its still a pretty useless way of describing a comic, though thankfully at least not on the scale of the graphic novel.

Some quick questions of my own.

Can anyone name a someone who calls themselves an independent cartoonist, artist, creater, writer?

Anyone know how the French categorize their BD?

Did the ISER not do a show on this topic, anyone remember the show number, night be relevant.

ztoical

magwea wrote: »

Can anyone name a someone who calls themselves an independent cartoonist, artist, creater, writer?

In what context do you mean? I know alot of people who would called themselves and independent artist even ones that have work published regularly by one of the big two.

magwea wrote: »

Anyone know how the French categorize their BD?

Do you mean categorize in the way that manga is categorized into all the sub groups or something else?

magwea wrote: »

Did the ISER not do a show on this topic, anyone remember the show number, night be relevant.

Do you mean indie spinner rack? They did a show recently on distribution which covered a little bit of this or is ISER a different podcast [or am I way off and your not taking about a podcast at all]


I guess the reason I asked the question is that I find most people on here seem to put anything not Marvel or DC into the independent cat and I was wondering how many people would put the likes of manga, BD's, and none superhero comics into that group. I heard someone recently refer to the Flight books as independent but they are published by random house which is the largest book publisher in the world. Is it just something we've got into a habbit as using in the generic sense to describe anything thats not marvel or dc?

brianthebard

Good thread op.I agree with what fysh said although i have to add another category of independent comic;the webcomic!Indeed these are often more truly 'independent'than most since they don't depend on a 3rd party publisher.Agree/disagree?

ztoical

brianthebard wrote: »

Agree/disagree?

yes and no - I think most webcomics would count as indie but you've the subscription sites like Modern Tales or GirlAmatic which have editors for the site who pick the comics.

livingtargets

Ah I don`t think all superhero comics are all the type comics made by the "big boys" .Sure,look no further than Rob Curley and Will Sliney`s Atomic Rocketgroup 66 for proof.

And also(even if this strays a wee bit off topic...)I think it`s unfair to say every Marvel/DC comic is crap.There are many fine comics and talents being shown by these publishers(check out any Detective Comic with Dustin Nuygiven`s art to see what I mean.)

Fysh

livingtargets wrote: »

Ah I don`t think all superhero comics are all the type comics made by the "big boys" .Sure,look no further than Rob Curley and Will Sliney`s Atomic Rocketgroup 66 for proof.

It's fair to say that there's a lot of variety within the genre of superheroics. I think it's more the case that because the Big Two made their name in superhero comics specifically, and are explicitly associated with them, that people seem to think "Superhero = marvel/DC". It's not helped by the way a lot of Image's early stuff was basically knocked off from Marvel but with more violence and stylised content, or the way so many superhero comics are commentaries/satires on comics from the Big Two. But on the other hand every now and again you get a League of Extraordinary Gentlemen which gives you a different context for the whole idea...

livingtargets wrote: »

And also(even if this strays a wee bit off topic...)I think it`s unfair to say every Marvel/DC comic is crap.There are many fine comics and talents being shown by these publishers(check out any Detective Comic with Dustin Nuygiven`s art to see what I mean.)

One thing we've been blessedly free of for the most part recently is the "superhero comics are crap"/"indie comics are for self-obsessed losers who never get laid" level of debate about the relative merits of different genres.

I think (maybe that should be hope) that most posters in the forum realise that neither genre nor publisher indicate quality - it's pretty much a matter of taste. Hopefully we'll continue to be free of that level of fanthink. Having a personal preference for, say, Marvel over DC is one thing - insisting that a comic published by DC must be awful because it's not published by Marvel is another thing entirely, and a pretty stupid one at that.

Back to the webcomics thing - I'd say that in a certain sense they are independent (except where provided via subscription services as ztoical mentioned) although depending on the level of the creators and their regularity of publishing they'd probably be a more comfortable fit in the "small press" area.

ztoical

livingtargets wrote: »

And also(even if this strays a wee bit off topic...)I think it`s unfair to say every Marvel/DC comic is crap.There are many fine comics and talents being shown by these publishers(check out any Detective Comic with Dustin Nuygiven`s art to see what I mean.)

I don't think its been said anywhere in this thread that Marvel/DC comics are crap [god knows I spend enough money on them] I think all areas of comics have their good and bad points. the thread was started simple to gage what people viewed as being independant comics when they use the word as it gets thrown around alot and there does seem to be a difference in what the word actually means.

magwea

ztoical wrote: »

In what context do you mean? I know alot of people who would called themselves and independent artist even ones that have work published regularly by one of the big two.

So like a freelancer then? I apologize for being unclear, however i still can't name of a single creator that calls themselves an independent and what would it mean exactly anyway, a glorified freelancer?

ztoical wrote: »

Do you mean categorize in the way that manga is categorized into all the sub groups or something else?

Apologizes again for being unclear, what i was trying to get at here was do the French have the same divide between "independent" and mainstream, or is this even an issue at all. I know Trondheim, Sfar along with a few others formed a collective to publish their more experimental books, were these guys seen as independent.

ztoical wrote: »

Do you mean indie spinner rack? They did a show recently on distribution which covered a little bit of this or is ISER a different podcast [or am I way off and your not taking about a podcast at all]

Sorry again for my confusion, I know Indie Spinner Rack did an early show were they set out there manifesto. I can't exactly remember what there definition of independent was, and it would be interesting to know, in the end the show is mostly about comics and artists that they like regardless of being seen as independent or not. And i thought ou were a listener.

ztoical wrote: »

I guess the reason I asked the question is that I find most people on here seem to put anything not Marvel or DC into the independent cat

I'd agree, this is the most common way that independent is used in comics, and i don't really see anything wrong with this per say, I'm no Eddie Campbell

Speaking of Campbell, started reading The Fate of the Artist yesterday. A delicious quote Hayly Campbell being interviewed about her father might be relevant.
Hayley:All the time he'd rant in his head about some internet f***wits. Sometimes he'd even meet one at a convention, or correspond by e-mail and arrive at an agreement regarding the imagined offense. But then he'd forget he'd done that and start getting pissed off all over again.
Interviewer:When you say he fell out with certain parties, what kind of disagreement are you referring to? Personal criticisms?
Hayley: Oh, nothing so sensible. It was usually about he definition of words. He'd say there was 'an absence of intellectual rigor and logical discipline'. So he'd just resolve to just use the words according to his own definition and f*** everybody else. Once you start doing that you're on the road to becoming a crank, or Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass.

Fysh

magwea, I think if you start talking about the individual creators being "independent" it becomes even harder to nail down a valid definition, given that people can work on more than one project at a time. I think that the general notion of "independent x" (where x is essentially any medium of art and/or entertainment) only really has meaning at the level of publication and distribution, because in that case the principle is to bypass the established mainstream publication and distribution companies in order to avoid the perceived restrictions that are assumed to be imposed on all projects moved through those companies.

So while I have no idea if Alan Nolan or Ian Whelan consider themselves "independents" as writers or artists, I'd safely say that Sancho is an independent comic. Ditto Bob Byrne's Mbleh and Mister Amperduke.

I don't like the idea of "independent = non-Marvel or DC" because, frankly, it suggests that comics still revolve around those two companies. Some independent comics are vying for the same audience with the same sort of material, but then you've also got a lot of stuff in independent comics that is completely different to what the Big Two are publishing and aimed at different audiences. A Mostly Marvel fan is hardly the target audience for Jimmy Corrigan or Black Hole, and likewise an Adrian Tomine/Daniel Clowes follower is unlikely to be considered the prime audience for DCU continuity-heavy comics. (Which is not to say they couldn't enjoy them, just that a publisher would be foolhardy to rely on their support when assessing the demand for new titles).

magwea

Fysh wrote: »

I think if you start talking about the individual creators being "independent" it becomes even harder to nail down a valid definition, given that people can work on more than one project at a time.

I'm with you there, seems like a misnomer to me.

Fysh wrote: »

I think that the general notion of "independent x" (where x is essentially any medium of art and/or entertainment) only really has meaning at the level of publication and distribution, because in that case the principle is to bypass the established mainstream publication and distribution companies in order to avoid the perceived restrictions that are assumed to be imposed on all projects moved through those companies.

Good definition, this sounds sensible and logical to my ears, but is this really the way most people use the term independent in comics.

Fysh wrote: »

A Mostly Marvel fan is hardly the target audience for Jimmy Corrigan or Black Hole, and likewise an Adrian Tomine/Daniel Clowes follower is unlikely to be considered the prime audience for DCU continuity-heavy comics.

Speaking of Random House and giant corporations who is it again that is publishing these cartoonists?

I like the Adrian Tomine/Daniel Clowes zing, intentional or not.

Fysh

magwea wrote: »

Speaking of Random House and giant corporations who is it again that is publishing these cartoonists? I like the Adrian Tomine/Daniel Clowes zing, intentional or not.

Re: Random House, Jonathan Cape etc - that's probably a better point to make in the context of the "Big Two = mainstream, independent = !Big Two" argument. The top selling TPB of 2007 is unlikely to have achieved sales anywhere near the top selling book from Random House. So it's a curious example of cultural isolation to have so many fans state the "independent = !Big Two" idea as though it were a self-evident fact.

I confess I'm not sure what you mean about the Tomine/Clowes zing - care to elaborate?

magwea

Fysh wrote: »

Re: Random House, Jonathan Cape etc - that's probably a better point to make in the context of the "Big Two = mainstream, independent = !Big Two" argument. The top selling TPB of 2007 is unlikely to have achieved sales anywhere near the top selling book from Random House.

Cultural isolation or ghetto.

Fysh wrote: »

So it's a curious example of cultural isolation to have so many fans state the "independent = !Big Two" idea as though it were a self-evident fact.

You got me confused there. Chris Ware and his cohorts are more succesful with the major publishers then say most direct market cartoonists.

Fysh wrote: »

I confess I'm not sure what you mean about the Tomine/Clowes zing - care to elaborate?

Tomine is often criticized for being simply a clone of Clowes' writing and art style, the way you phrased it makes it look like they are simply interchangeable which for most readers they are. OK, maybe not very funny.

Speaking of Tomine, Clowes and Ware anyone seen the amazing new Angoulème festival guest list?

Fysh

magwea wrote: »

You got me confused there. Chris Ware and his cohorts are more succesful with the major publishers then say most direct market cartoonists.

I don't know if I'm explaining myself very well, but the essence of my point is this - the major book publishers dwarf even Marvel and DC in terms of book sales (although how you could compare sales and include the monthlies is harder to pin down) and yet the general use of "independent" as "non-Big-Two" comics would suggest that they're a drop in the ocean of comics as a whole.

This points to a bigger problem in some of the audience expectations, which is what Steven Grant recently referred to as "fanthink" - the notion that wanting something to be true and thus behaving and talking as though it were true is enough to make/i] it true. So you get superhero fans mainly talking to other superhero fans (an effect made worse by the thankfully-now-diminishing tendency of non-comics fans viewing all comics but especially superhero comics as juvenile) and gradually losing the real-world perspective that the comics fit into.

It's a lack of context or, in some cases, a wilful denial of context. Top tv shows get tens of millions of viewers, despite requiring a television and usually satellite or cable to view them - top comics get about a couple of hundred thousand in sales, and require little other than the 3-4 dollars to buy them. The conclusion to draw is that actually, the comics selling a couple of hundred thousand copies per issue aren't mainstream, at least not by the standards of the culture as a whole (although part of this is down to distribution problems caused to no small extent by a lack of vision, innovation, and business planning by both the publishers and Diamond as the chief distributor).

Comics as a whole, at least comics whose main audience buys via a local comic shop, are in fact a niche in a certain sense, as a logical extension of the voluntary genre-restrictions that much of their material is subjected to by the publishers themselves.

magwea wrote: »

Tomine is often criticized for being simply a clone of Clowes' writing and art style, the way you phrased it makes it look like they are simply interchangeable which for most readers they are. OK, maybe not very funny.

I get what you mean. I suspect that with a lot of readers who aren't versed with their whole back catalogue you probably could confound them by pulling the switcheroo, but since they're both pretty good I don't have too much of a problem with it personally.

magwea

Comics' footprint as a whole on culture as a whole is effectively none existent outside of niche groups in the west. Indeed, comics haven't been a mass media for what 60 years. On the other hand, i couldn't care less if it was a mass media or not, i only wish that the creators that i enjoy could make a respectable living in comics without having to change doing what they're doing at the moment.

I like the idea of fanthink, and its suitably dystopian reference.

Fysh

I agree, I'm not pushed about creators being heard by the masses so much as I'm pushed about them being able to make a living without having to compromise what they create.

An interesting angle to consider with comics becoming more popular as film adaptations is whether the recent spate of "faithful" adaptations will have a lasting influence in terms of licencing original material without brutally ripping it apart during the "adaptation" process...

ztoical

magwea wrote: »

So like a freelancer then? I apologize for being unclear, however i still can't name of a single creator that calls themselves an independent and what would it mean exactly anyway, a glorified freelancer?

pretty much every comic artists out there is a freelancer as no publisher keeps artists on staff anymore - the only people at the DC or Marvel offices are editors, graphic designers, random office people and interns. I have heard Chris Ware, Peter Kuper, Rob Ullman and others use the term independent. Its very common for animators to refer to themselves as independent animators rather then freelance animators so I guess that might cause some of my confusion with the different implications of the phrase.

French comics don't really divide up into "mainstream" or "independent" they have some genre divisions all right like manga does and some big ass publishers but its like the way french cinema is off in its own world away from hollywood films.

magwea

Heck, if i was a Marvel comics fan i'd be worried about the company moving into self financing their own properties for film, as they have just done with Iron man, especially since its proved to be so much more lucrative for them than their comics will ever be.

The movies have always been sycophantic of other mediums, why bother staying true to the original property when there is plenty more money to be made in adaptations for the mainstream, it certainly is what the mediums best at doing.

magwea

ztoical wrote: »

pretty much every comic artists out there is a freelancer as no publisher keeps artists on staff anymore

No doubt this is true, in that case it makes it even stranger for cartoonists to call themselves independent, especially ones such as Chris Ware who publishes work that is anything but independently published or distributed.

Does it simply refer to a creator who works without an editor then.

Fysh

I'm going to be rude at this point and say that I think we've safely established that no profound insights are going to emerge from discussing whether or not cartoonists, artists or writers can be "independent" in any meaningful way, so we may as well leave that part of the conversation to die a natural death.

magwea

Fysh wrote: »

I'm going to be rude at this point and say that I think we've safely established that no profound insights are going to emerge from discussing whether or not cartoonists, artists or writers can be "independent" in any meaningful way, so we may as well leave that part of the conversation to die a natural death.

No no no, where would comics be without beating dead horse. Well, i suppose their are independent film makers -whatever that means- why not have independent cartoonist as well.

As to profound insights, i've read plenty of good comics but have yet to find a single profound one, with certain peanuts strips being the closest.

Edit: This Nancy panel maybe also http://jimwoodring.blogspot.com/2006/07/greatest-nancy-panel-ever-drawn.html

Fysh

Profundity is in the mind of the reader, I'd have thought - thus anything from Batman Strikes through to How Loathsome could be profound (or pretentious) depending on who's looking at it. Although I daresay that if you've never found profundity in a comic, you can't have looked very hard...

magwea

Fysh wrote: »

Profundity is in the mind of the reader, I'd have thought - thus anything from Batman Strikes through to How Loathsome could be profound (or pretentious) depending on who's looking at it. Although I daresay that if you've never found profundity in a comic, you can't have looked very hard...

Obviously, its all about the reader in the end, should have put a personnel disclaimer on the end of my snark.

Honestly, though i find comics to be tiresome, yet i'm still addicted to them, this great untapped potential. Sure there are brilliant moments of pathos but profundity...

Might be interesting to see a personnel list, if only for the inevitable insults generated.

Fysh

I think Calvin & Hobbes is probably the first comic where I ever found profound moments, which were all the better for being very well-meshed with the generally kinetic and whimsical nature of the strip overall. For example, the series of strips in which Calvin finds a dying animal of some sort (a bird? a squirrel? I can't remember) and rushes it home to his mum as "mums know how to fix everything" or something like that. The animal dies and Calvin's dad has to explain to him that he tried his best but it was too late; there are a couple of strips showing Calvin being upset at the animal's death and musing about it, and it ends on a wonderful note of Calvin getting angry at the apparent meaninglessness of it all, leading to the following exchange:

Calvin: "It's either mean or it's arbitrary, and either way I've got the heeby-jeebies!"
Hobbes: "Why is it always the middle of the night when we talk about these things?"

Other examples? Well, I suppose Ghost World, Epileptic, or Summer Blonde. I'm not looking for profound statements or revelations as such but more a certain level of honesty in the writing; I want characters that are emotionally fleshed-out and have flaws, and to see how those flaws shape the characters...

magwea

My blanket statement yesterday was far to brash, so i admonish myself.

This is definitely an interesting subject, stumbling across this online http://strippersguide.blogspot.com/2008/07/strippers-guide-bookshelf-willie-and.html, a rare and mostly forgotten example of the huge importance that cartoons had for millions of people not to long ago, is a reminder. The funny thing is I've got this collection at home and its great but i can barely understand it.

ztoical

Stopped by the Indie spiiner rack forums for the first time in two weeks and found a what is an independent comic thread started there at almost the same time this thread was stated - some interesting points brought up in. The same poster also asked the question over at the CGS forum

Fysh

Wow, that CGS thread was basically a bunch of Marvel/DC heads insisting that the world does in fact revolve around them, wasn't it? I particularly liked the folks claiming that every other publisher in the world other than Marvel & DC were "independent", because of course Marvel are bigger in the publishing world than, say, Jonathan Cape...

magwea

Fysh wrote: »

Wow, that CGS thread was basically a bunch of Marvel/DC heads insisting that the world does in fact revolve around them, wasn't it? I particularly liked the folks claiming that every other publisher in the world other than Marvel & DC were "independent", because of course Marvel are bigger in the publishing world than, say, Jonathan Cape...

The direst market comics world from where the Marvel/DC heads come from does revolve around them, they have 80% plus market share, calling everything else independent seems reasonable. Excluding manga, comics have barely any significance in the publishing world at large.

Fysh

Yes, but that's only if you accept the notion of "comics = North American comics". Which, having grown up with British, Spanish and to a lesser extent some European comics as reading material, is a notion I find not only objectionable but counter to the interests of anyone who genuinely enjoys comics. The Direct Market model is a horribly restrictive one when it comes to diversity of material, and the only fans who benefit from it are those nostalgia-obsessed folks who want all their comics to be rehashes of the stuff they read as kids, and if at all possible would also like the material to be kind of inaccessible to anyone who didn't also read that stuff as kids.

Why not just say "indepenent = no money up front?" or "independent = without the backing/support of an existing publishing company"? Why buy in to this notion that Marvel and DC are the intrinsic core of comics as a medium, just because they've dominant specifically in the niche market that is superhero comics? It's like saying "Well, Penguin publish a lot of classic literature, so let's call anything from earlier than the 20th century not published by Penguin 'independent literature'."

If the term "independent" still retains any meaning in comics (or any medium for that matter) that meaning must be connected to the ideals or philosophy behind those making independent comics; if it's just a matter of which publisher's name is on the cover then we can safely say that it means nothing of any importance.

magwea

Fysh wrote: »

Yes, but that's only if you accept the notion of "comics = North American comics".

Well, that is the context the Marvel/DC heads are trying to describe -they are not talking about comics as a whole- therefore it is neither a wrong way of describing the situation of their comics ghetto within which the big two are the core of the medium, nor an arrogant view, perhaps just slightly narrow minded. On the flip side, the idea that the term independent is being sullied by some fanboys is both.

Fysh

"Slightly narrow-minded" is a bit too generous a term for some of the points of view I've seen expressed around the place, which essentially boil down to "if a comic's not about superheroes, what's the point of reading/creating it?".

That being said, you seem to be taking me for someone who thinks that being "independent" is a badge of merit. If anything, I think the aggressive dialogue about "independents" vs "mainstream" isn't going to have any useful positive effect on the medium as a whole, because the whole conversation seems to be underpinned by an assumption that one type or the other are inherently superior.

magwea

I entirely agree with your statement, they wouldn't be fanboys if they weren't narrow minded.

The second part not so much. Within the direct market, the realm of the fanboy, their is effectively no independent presence: the debate of "independents" vs "mainstream" has already been won.

Again disclaimer, its an entirely different picture outside of the direct market, and ditto the world of comics as a whole. Nevertheless, why deny the nomenclature of the fanboy within their own realm.

Putting on my antagonist hat, again, what is the self-appellation of being independent other then a slightly dubious badge of merit?

Fysh

magwea wrote: »

Putting on my antagonist hat, again, what is the self-appellation of being independent other then a slightly dubious badge of merit?

I'm confused, I think this is the same question I was trying to ask you

As a reader, I don't think that being independent makes much of a difference to what lands on the shelf.

It depends on what influence publishers and editors have, or are perceived to have, on the final product. The supposed importance of "independent" material rests on the perceived purity of the material being created, with the assumption being that it hasn't had changes forced upon it to increase its marketability.

The problem being that being free from that interference also means being unable to make use of their extensive resources such as editors, marketing people and printers.

brianthebard

magwea wrote: »

Putting on my antagonist hat, again, what is the self-appellation of being independent other then a slightly dubious badge of merit?

don't you think its more a statement of intent by the artist/producer?One that suggests this piece shall have an element of artistic purity and was not denigrated in pursuit of market share?(sidenote:in 'i feel sick'#2,by J.Vasquez the artist clearly displays the pressure and interference of a mainstream comic company in the artists work and how soul destroying it is to endure for him)one could also say that there are shades of marxism in the production of independant comics,insofar as the means of production are placed in the artists hands and they make a direct link with the reader?(have i lost everyone yet?)

magwea

How can you say this:

Fysh wrote: »

I don't think that being independent makes much of a difference to what lands on the shelf.

And then say this:

Fysh wrote: »

The problem being that being free from that interference also means being unable to make use of their extensive resources such as editors, marketing people and printers.

magwea

brianthebard wrote: »

don't you think its more a statement of intent by the artist/producer?One that suggests this piece shall have an element of artistic purity and was not denigrated in pursuit of market share?

Sure, but that would require a certain amount of poopooing of mainstream comics, which is exactly what Fysh was alluding to in his "independents" vs "mainstream" fear.

As for the Marxism spiel care to elaborate.

brianthebard

magwea wrote: »

Sure, but that would require a certain amount of poopooing of mainstream comics, which is exactly what Fysh was alluding to in his "independents" vs "mainstream" fear. As for the Marxism spiel care to elaborate.

why is that poopooing necessarily bad though?(assuming you think it is?)the artist is making a decision about how they want their work produced,and may decide independent publishing means they have the most control.Why is this a good thing?Because it allows the reader to see the clearest expression of the artist.As for the marxism,i thought i did elaborate?One of the tenets of marx is the taking back of the means of production.An artist who takes the production of a comic into their own hands is doing just that.Hope that helps.

Jack B. Badd

brianthebard wrote: »

don't you think its more a statement of intent by the artist/producer?One that suggests this piece shall have an element of artistic purity and was not denigrated in pursuit of market share?

brianthebard wrote: »

the artist is making a decision about how they want their work produced,and may decide independent publishing means they have the most control.

How many independently produced comics are a result of the creator wilfully making a decision to maintain "artistic purity", as you put it, and how many are a result of the creator having little or no choice in how they get their work published? Realistically, I would think that a significant number of comics published independently are done so because that's the only way they will ever be published. Ditto for other forms of media, like music...

There seems to be a certain romanticism of independent comics running through the above posts that doesn't quite correspond with reality imo.

Fysh

*sigh*

I'll start again, and try to clarify.

When discussing the notion of "independent comics", there is the real-world value of the independent label, and the theoretical value that individuals may place in that label.

I do not personally think that there is any real-world value to the independent label at present.

However, if someone does think there's a value to the independent label and thus some inherent level of quality to any comic which is independent, they have to then reconcile the perceived advantages of independence against its disadvantages.

(Personally, this would mean that unless a publisher was exerting a frankly Stalinist level of control over every product it published, and that the freedom afforded by being independent would be worth the extra work created in having to handle marketing/editing/printing/etc.)

magwea

Fysh wrote: »

When discussing the notion of "independent comics", there is the real-world value of the independent label, and the theoretical value that individuals may place in that label.

I do not personally think that there is any real-world value to the independent label at present.

However, if someone does think there's a value to the independent label and thus some inherent level of quality to any comic which is independent, they have to then reconcile the perceived advantages of independence against its disadvantages.

As always Fysh is on the money, and the voice of reason.

Independent comics is any comic published and distributed independently of established corporate interest, as Fysh said at the very start of the tread. Don't mind my second guessing and foolishness, it was only in the interest of debate. The most interesting point is boldened, see above.

I, however, still think the fanboys have every right to use independent in anyway they see fit. Sheesh, what are we the thought police.

Fysh

Ah, I suppose you're right in that regard. It can get very confusing if different people use the term with different meanings, so I suppose the main thing is for people to try and explain what they mean by it. It's interesting to see the range of interpretations that folks put on the tag, though...

TheMelodyOfRain

Definitions indeed differ from mind to mind. I've been investing serious consideration into beginning a graphic novel and perhaps developing it into a series, and upon doing so I'd regard myself as an independent artist on the grounds that I work completely alone on every aspect of the production process, from drawing to publishing.

chebbo

An independent publisher is a publisher that is independent of, or has not become themselves, a large corporation.

Therefore Image are - indeed - independent.

DC, for example - are not, due to being part of Time/Warner.

Marvel are not because they have become part of a larger corporation.

Mainstream, comics are comic that appeal to the mainstream, therefore - in my book - DC and Marvel are not mainstream. However, Tin Tin and some Random House titles could be considered mainstream.

Comics -as a whole - are not really a mainstram medium at the moment.

Manga are just comics. English or japanese is irrelevent, they are still just comics, and if you asked someone in Japan they would all be just manga.

IMHO

Shane

ztoical

chebbo wrote: »

An independent publisher is a publisher that is independent of, or has not become themselves, a large corporation.

Therefore Image are - indeed - independent.

DC, for example - are not, due to being part of Time/Warner.

Marvel are not because they have become part of a larger corporation.

Mainstream, comics are comic that appeal to the mainstream, therefore - in my book - DC and Marvel are not mainstream. However, Tin Tin and some Random House titles could be considered mainstream.

What about most of the french comics? Most of them would be part of larger corporations in france - alot of the big comics publishers are also the big movie and animation producers in france but because they aren't sold via the whole diamond direct market route they wouldn't be called mainstream by alot fo comic fans.

The reason I started this thread was because it was said that most of the comics from the what are you reading thread weren't independent comics but looking throught the thread its alot of vertigo books that are being mentioned and vertigo being an imprint of DC would be mainstream - we've covered it more in a nuts and bolts sort of way but I guess i was going more for "you looking at comics in a shop and judging by cover alone with no branding [ie no company logo] do you mental judge something mainstream or indie before picking it up"

Its the difference between what is mainstream/independent? and what do people think is mainstream/independent? if that makes any sense.

chebbo wrote: »

Manga are just comics. English or japanese is irrelevent, they are still just comics, and if you asked someone in Japan they would all be just manga.

I've little interested anymore in the whole "what is manga argument" that goes on and on online URL="http://puritybrown.blogspot.com/2008/01/just-to-make-my-own-position-clear.html"]the manga is only for comics made in japan view point[/URL] and [URL="http://tinpan.livejournal.com/100342.html"]the anyone can draw manga side[/URL but I do know its not just as simple as manga is comics otherwise there wouldn't be such up roar over the OEL manga. Is manga a style or genre the never ending argument. Yes manga the word means comics in Japan but it is used in an english speaking context to donate comics from Japan or comics in a certain style.

magwea

Why is mainstream used for the opposite of Independent? Dependent/independent, maybe.

Look up the antonyms of mainstream and you'll know why independent is -falsely- used as a badge of merit.

When it comes to going into the comic shop it is the package design and talent rather then publisher which inform my purchase. A gary panter comic is -mostly- going to be a gary panter comic no matter who publishes it.

ztoical

magwea wrote: »

Why is mainstream used for the opposite of Independent? Dependent/independent, maybe.

Look up the antonyms of mainstream and you'll know why independent is -falsely- used as a badge of merit.

When it comes to going into the comic shop it is the package design and talent rather then publisher which inform my purchase. A gary panter comic is -mostly- going to be a gary panter comic no matter who publishes it.

ah god bless gary and his brain fired on drugs.....anyway I have to admit I actually hate the word independent. When I hear it used it does sound like its a badge of merit or that the artists is trying to rebel against something. I remember going to the Bristol con last year and one of the guys running it explaining how they don't call their small press section small press but independent press cus calling small press was somehow implying it was inferior and I don't get that. Maybe it might strike some that way but for me small press sounds better then independent press.

Fysh

That whole badge of merit thing is rather annoying alright, the same as those twits who can only like obscure bands because somehow popularity taints things.

Then again, there are obviously people who will buy stuff marketed in this way. It's weird, the "indie badge of pride mentality" is based on thinking that the mainstream audience are idiots who couldn't possibly appreciate the greatness of indie comics because they're not dumbed down. But then of course, indie comics try to sell to that same audience. I'm going to assume it's a corrupted version of the DIY-punk ethic from the 70s and 80s, and dismiss it as such.

ztoical

Fysh wrote: »

That whole badge of merit thing is rather annoying alright, the same as those twits who can only like obscure bands because somehow popularity taints things.

Then again, there are obviously people who will buy stuff marketed in this way.

HIPSTERS!!!! Kill them all, before they infect us!