...Like the Ones I Read as a Kid...

I've gotten a number of comics over the years that were made by folks that were early in their careers as creators, and they'll tell me -- in person if I see them at a convention or just from the messaging on their site or Kickstarter or wherever -- that they're trying to capture the best parts about comics they grew to love the medium on. Doesn't matter how old they are now, or when they got into comics, the stated goal is: I want to make comics like the ones I read [sometime earlier]. Maybe they're thinking about one title in particular they really loved, or maybe a single creator, but it's often a small group of some sort. Not something necessarily indicative of the entire period they're referring to, but a subset that embodied a handful of particular traits.

Not surprisingly, some creators are more successful than others in that regard. They have more talent or more time they can throw at the project or whatever. But regardless of how good/successful their comic is -- however you define "good" or "successful" -- it will still always be just an shadow of that original. You might be able to see echoes of where the creators' inspirations and it might be executed well, but it's derivative by design so it will always be identifed and understood in relation to the original sources.

I don't say that in a derogatory fashion. As I said, they're actively trying to be derivative at some level, so it's going to be treated as such regardless of how well executed it is.

Furthermore, that is an excellent way to learn. When you're first learning to draw, you do what? You try to copy drawings that you like or stand out for whatever reason. Maybe at first, you're literally tracing figures. As you get better, you copy them but having the original off to the side. Later still, you're perhaps copying layouts from one artist but trying to emulate the linework of another. And so on.

Making comics can follow the same basic process, just on a more holistic scale. You "graduate" from copying specific scenes to using story structure and pacing. And somewhere in there is, "I wanted to make comics like the ones I read [sometime earlier]." And that's perfectly fine. You, as a creator, are learning and readers still get an entertaining story. (Provided you've got some level of talent, of course!)

I saw an interview several years ago where Kazu Kabuishi was talking about how he had been reading Bone and was basically trying to copy what Jeff Smith had been doing and doing a poor job of it. Smith, who was sitting right next to him, noted how he had spent much of his early days trying to copywhat Milton Caniff had been doing and doing a poor job of it. The difference between what you're trying to do and what you actually do is your personal style.

The only problem, though, with this approach of trying to bring something of a someone's previous work is that it's difficult to really connect with a solid audience. They can enjoy your work, certainly, but they're connecting with the work of the person you're trying to capture, not your own. The work becomes interesting and readers connect with it when you start speaking for yourself. Sure, you can have your influences and they can come through in your work, but trying to actively make comics like other comics, it's like listening to a cover band. They may be good, but you'd rather see the real deal in concert, right?

My point here is more directed at readers than creators. If you get one of these "I wanted to make comics like the ones I read [sometime earlier]" comics, don't dismiss it because it feels redundant to a bunch of other stuff you read 20 or 30 years ago. Keep an eye on those creators because they're probably close to finding their own voice, and they might then have some really cool and interesting things to say!

Related Items craft