Latest Posts

I first watched Star Wars when it came out in the 70s. I was six. Everything about the movie was absolutely new to me. I had no conception of what old serials Lucas was alluding to, or who Alec Guinness and Peter Cushing were, or the cultural impact of naming them "Stormtroopers"... I didn't question what a womp rat was because, by the time they got to that reference in the movie, my head so over-flowing with other new ideas that I didn't even have room for anything else.

Star Wars then became a cultural education of sorts for me. I thought it was a fun movie, of course, but my interest spread out into seeing where Lucas' ideas came from. From Buster Crabbe to World War I. Not surprisingly, the works of Joseph Campbell came to my attention since Lucas specifically cited his works as a model/template for his basic story structure.

The Hero with a Thousand Faces
Campbell, if you don't know, studied and wrote about mythology. Rather than just relay old myths or study their origins, he focused on broad themes and ideas that were common among many cultures. His research led him to what he called the "monomyth". In The Hero with a Thousand Faces he outlined the basic plot structure of many major myths, pointing out not just the story beats but how they work and why they're important. It's become more commonly known as "the hero's journey." You see it in stories from Gilgamesh to King Arthur to Beowulf.

What's happened, though, is that modern writers have been formally taught to this. They're told to study Campbell and learn how to write stories that follow the hero's journey because it's effective storytelling. Which it is.

Until it isn't.

See, the problem is that EVERY fiction writer has studied Campbell at this point and, while they often try to still write their own unique stories, they often resort to pat rehashes of Campbell's structure. While you can deviate from Campbell's work (indeed, Campbell himself notes that there are many potential deviations in the monomyth) many who work in overly commercial ventures like comic books and movies stick to the same patterns, most likely because of external pressures like deadlines.

One of the reasons I stopped going to movies was because I kept seeing Campbell being used over and over again. The films became exceedingly predictable and, therefore, boring. You can frequently pick out the archetypes Campbell identified within seconds of the actor stepping in front of the camera.

The longer form works that I've been enjoying lately are the ones that bear the least resemblance to the monomyth. While there are still elements of the hero's journey in play, and I can spot those pretty readily, they're changed pretty significantly in some way so they don't feel hackneyed. In One Piece for example, the wizened old teacher that takes the hero under his wing doesn't really show up until nearly 600 chapters into the story! At which point, the story jumps to two years later after the training is complete. In Bakuman, the same archetype is embodied in 28-year-old Hattori who, instead of teaching the protagonists, maneuvers people and situations around them so they educate themselves. Compare this against the more obvious Merlin/Yoda style versions that show up everywhere.

I happened to watch Big Hero 6 over the weekend, and one of the things that I was very pleasantly surprised about was how they changed up some of the monomyth tropes. The older mentor character was Hiro's 20-something brother Tadashi, who dies pretty early in the film. But he continues to act as a mentor through his last project and his notes about it. It continues to follow the same ideas Campbell laid out, but does so in an unconventional and almost subversive way. I kind of half-think they weren't deliberately trying subvert the monomyth at all, and they just happened to land on a similar structure, but approached it differently out of ignorance.

More of that please!
Here are this week's links to what I've had published recently...

Kleefeld on Comics: Meta Comic Strip
https://ift.tt/2KtgxNL

Kleefeld on Comics: Aland Davis's FF, circa 1982
https://ift.tt/3nPlcIk

Kleefeld on Comics: Marketing Comics in the 21st Century Redux
https://ift.tt/3mi6glu

Kleefeld on Comics: Happy Thanksgiving
https://ift.tt/3meztxS



Ron Cobb, 1967
I wrote the following back in 2009, so I've been sitting with these ideas for over a decade. I think they're all still perfectly valid, but I don't know how widespread this type of thinking is among comics folks, so I thought it might be worth coming back to it again. I've gone through and updated some of the topical references, but the basic points remain.




Cultural capital.

Attention economy.

Social media.

Three phrases that are rolling around in my head right now, and I'm trying to wrap my head around all three concepts as they pertain to comics. How about I start with some definitions so that we're all on the same page?

Cultural capital is a term that was introduced in the early 1970s by Pierre Bourdieu. He argued that there were three forms of capital: economic, social and cultural. Economic capital is what we typically think of when we use "capital." We're talking about money and assets. Social capital is a more analytical view of social standing; it's not unrelated to popularity, though there are some differences. Cultural capital is the knowledge, skill and experience one has tied to a particular culture or sub-culture. In terms of comicdom, it's how well you know the Spider-Man mythos, whether or not you can recite the Green Lantern oath from memory, being able to determine who inked a comic just by looking at the style... that kind of thing.

Herbert Simon noted in the early 1970s that we, as a society, were beginning to experience information overload. People were bombarded by so many messages and ideas that the attention they could give each one was being substantially diminished. This information overload gave rise to an attention scarcity -- there's more information than attention to receive it. The problem wasn't so much getting your message out there, but filtering out everybody else's. You're battling for people's attention. The number of viewers matters. Your ratings matter. This is an attention economy.

Finally, social media are outlets which foster communities and personal interactions. It's easy to cite things like Facebook and Twitter which showcase popular social media, but old school BBSes and message boards certainly qualify too.

Here's where things get tricky. There seems to be a connection there, like all three notions are somehow related, but it's hard to verbalize cohesively. I think, though, that by trying to walk through a particular example -- in this case, comics -- might help facilitate some understanding. Let's start with social media, since that's probably what most people are most familiar with.

What happens when a creator puts a webcomic online? A group of people find the comic, and presumably some like it. Many, if not most, of the online comic publishing options available include some sort of feedback option, so readers leave a note about how they like the comic. Maybe the creator(s) respond(s). Maybe somebody else just says, "Yeah, I like that too!" Sometime afterwards, a small community develops around the comic in question.

People have a natural inclination to seek out others similar to themselves. It produces a feeling of self-worth and validation, certainly, but when you get down to it, it makes life more enjoyable when you surround yourself with people you're comfortable with. And the use of comics is essentially just a bridge to achieving that end. It provides a common ground for everyone to start from as they get to know one another.

"Hey, you like Questionable Content? I like it too! What do you like most about it?"

It provides a direction for your introduction into a group, as opposed to walking into a room full of strangers and being asked, "Tell us about yourself." That's a totally open-ended question, and anyone could go off in a million different directions. By focusing on one aspect -- your enjoyment of a specific comic -- you can introduce yourself in a more directed (i.e. less ambiguous, more comfortable) manner.

Now, as you probably know, any group is composed of individuals. And each individual is going to bring different knowledge and experience to the table. And what is the sum of our knowledge and experience but cultural capital? This means that, in a group of people founded on the enjoyment of a shared resource, a hierarchy of sorts will emerge as each person reveals their cultural capital relative to that group.

"Wha...?"

Let me explain via a personal example.

One of my favorite comics for years was The Fantastic Four. I read everything about them I could get my hands on, and I developed a pretty keen awareness of the characters and their fictional histories. In the mid-1990s, I started developing a website to collect all my knowledge about the FF. Some of it was strictly factual (who worked on what issues) while some of it was theoretical (how the story from issue #5 could be reconciled -- and expanded upon -- with very real accounts of the historical Blackbeard). I participated in FF fan groups and garnered a name for myself on various message boards and the like. Over the course of the next decade, I became relatively well-known as THE expert on the Fantastic Four. And I eventually came to be asked to assist on a number of official FF products; you can see me credited in Fantastic Four #500, Marvel Masterworks: Fantastic Four vol. 10 and the extended edition of the Fantastic Four movie DVD among other places. I was being sought after by others precisely because of the cultural capital I developed over and above what most FF fans accumulated.

Now those people with a relatively high amount of cultural capital in a given group? Those folks are what might be called influencers. The group has high regard for them, and are more likely to follow their lead on various opinions. "After all, they are experts, so they must know more than I do on the subject." This is essentially an old practice. Magazines devoted to a given subject are often given review copies of products related to that subject, in the hopes that the magazine will review it favorably and get others to buy it. In the 21st century, though, expertise has less to with having your name in print, and more to do with actual expertise. (Or, more accurately, perceived expertise.) The experts are now Twittering and Facebooking and YouTubing. They're accumulating their cultural capital through social media. Which means they're capturing people's attention.

(See where I'm going with this?)

The people who are out there, developing their cultural capital, are ALSO developing an avenue through which they can break through people's attention filters. People have ALREADY decided that those with cultural capital are attention-worthy, and allow those messages to pass through their filters. Regular readers of this blog have a pretty good idea what to expect when they come here. I've generated whatever cultural capital I have and become an avenue for a certain type/style of message. And if you, as a creator, think the people who typically receive that type/style of message overlaps with your intended audience, then it's a prime outlet to target YOUR message. I have obtained something of value (readers' attention) that can be exchanged for something else (money, comp. copies of comics, etc.). But, it should be noted, it's only of value if my audience, such as it is, is who you are targeting. While I certainly don't have data to back this up, but I doubt my audience has a lot of overlap with, say, The Beat's or CBR's. If you're trying to target the folks who read those regularly, it's probably not worth your time treating me like an influencer because, for that audience, I'm not.

Still with me? On to practical application.

Most comic creators don't have the PR budget of Marvel and/or DC. Options are limited because of resources. Whether we're talking about webcomics or pamphlet books, creators need to understand our three subject areas specifically as it pertains to their creation.

Who is the target audience? There is no comic anywhere that's for everyone. (Even yours.) So creators need to first identify what sort of people are likely to enjoy it. Are they people who read Fleen, fans of Cat and Girl, anyone who kind of likes the Hulk, what? It's crucial to understand who a creator is to speaking to (generally) to understand who a creator needs to speak to (specifically).

Once the general audience is identified, a creator then needs to determine A) who has significant cultural capital in that group (the influencers) and B) what social media does they tend to gather around. Webcomics have something of advantage here over pamphlet comics since most social networks are technologically oriented like webcomics delivery systems themselves. Pamphlet comics certainly can and often do use those same social media, but not necessarily, and not necessarily in as concentrated locations. Fans of Sinfest tend to hang out right there at the dedicated forum; fans of Action Comics have quite a few more locations available to them. But some extended research is probably required; popping up out of the blue and asking, "Hey, who's got clout around here?" isn't likely to garner the best responses. A creator might have to sift through messages for quite some time to get a sense of who might have sway over the group.

Once the influencers are identified, the creator then needs to assuage their attention economy. How much do they feel their eyeball traffic is worth? Are they happy just to look at any new work? Are they so swamped with other things that an extra incentive (like an original sketch) is necessary to stand out a little more? Are they small time and happy to speak to any creator, or do they operate more professionally and have a specific address for review material? A creator needs to do more research, essentially, on how to influence the influencer.

Bear in mind that winning over the influencers isn't a sure sign to financial rewards. It is likely to win some cultural and possibly social capital, but economic capital is another matter. Like it or not, we're still in a society that runs on economic capital and I'm fairly certain we won't be counting Whuffie any time soon. But without making exchanges in the attention economy, monetizing a comic is a lost cause. The greatest comic in the world, after all, has no chance of improving your bank account if no one knows about it.
I found this squirreled away with some old files. If I recall correctly, it's the first piece of professionally printed Alan Davis artwork. Or one of his first pieces at any rate. It was a pin-up that was used in the second issue of Marvel UK's Fantastic Four book from 1982.
Marvel UK pinup by Alan Davis

Maybe it's just me, but I'd say he's improved a bit over the intervening years...
Fantastic Four Empyre by Alan Davis
In case you missed it, here is yesterday's installment of Hi and Lois...
Hi and Lois
The meta-commentary on the comics pages is fairly obvious. It's a criticism that's been lobbed at the funny pages for decades now. Interestingly, though, you could interpret the punchline in two ways. On one hand, you could say it's an acknowledgement by the creative team that Hi and Lois can be repetitive after over half a century of day-in-day-out gags, and the comedy is in the fact that Hi is unintentionally making the statement ironically. It's an acknowledgement -- of sorts -- that people who read the newspaper regularly aren't looking to the Sunday funnies for humor, but predictability. Alternatively, you can take it less as a punchline and more as a creative statement; "You didn't expect to see all these characters in today's Hi and Lois strip, did you? Those other strips might have some level of predictablity, but we do not. It would be easy to rely on the same gags over and over, but you can't say that about us!" (Whether you agree with that or not is another issue!) Honestly, I can't say which was their intention here; I lean towards the former, but I half-suspect that they didn't put that much thought into it beyond the superficial nature of "comic strip character comments on comic strips."

You can argue back and forth on that on your own, but there are some other things I'd like to point out...

In the newspaper Hi is reading, you can see Beetle Bailey and Hagar the Horrible strips pretty clearly. Beetle Bailey was, of course, created by Hi and Lois originator Mort Walker, and continues to be written by Brian and Greg Walker. Hagar is currently written and drawn by Chris Browne, who is the son of Dik Browne, the other originator of Hi and Lois. I saw someone note that the strips shown are "vintage" ones, and they do indeed look detailed enough that artist Eric Reaves likely copied them, but I can't seem to find precisely when those strips originally ran.

Also visible, though somewhat obscured, in the paper are Calvin & Hobbes and The Far Side.

Historically, in Family Circus, it's Billy who wanders around the neighborhood leaving a dotted line trail, not Jeffy. Reaves did indeed draw Jeffy here, so it's not exactly wrong, but it is atypical. It makes me wonder, though, if that's a deliberate undermining of the the commentary? While it is indeed the same basic gag from the strip as you expect, the humor lies in the unexpected variations. Charles Schulz himself once said, "A cartoonist is someone who has to draw the same thing day after day without repeating himself." And while I don't follow all the comics referenced here regularly any more, I believe it has been quite some time since Blondie featured a Dagwood-running-into-the-mailman gag or Jim Davis did a lasagna-related bit in Garfield.

Speaking of Garfield, of all the guest characters shown, Garfield seems to be the closest to on-model. Reaves did do an excellent job copying other creators' styles (Peanuts in particular is notoriously hard to get "just right") but Garfield is spot-on. On Facebook, Reaves reminded folks that he drew most of that strip from 1994 until 2011, so he's had a bit more practice there.
Here are this week's links to what I've had published recently...

Kleefeld on Comics: Completely Unsubstantiated FF Theory
https://ift.tt/3kwDWdv

Kleefeld on Comics: Pop Quiz, Lightning Round!
https://ift.tt/36GQH0g

Kleefeld on Comics: My Broken Mariko Review
https://ift.tt/2Kgw3MV

Kleefeld on Comics: Watchmen Record?
https://ift.tt/2IGxFPR

Kleefeld on Comics: Friday Links
https://ift.tt/3lPVZNq