Pat pattered:
Waitaminit, Pat, are you saying that it's the creator isn't showing professionalism when the *publisher* doesn't ship the book at the time the *publisher* solicited for it, when it may be due to the *publisher* asking the artist to do something else instead? Gee, that's impressive. I know of creators who didn't even know they were involved with a book until they saw it mentioned in Previews.

Rick asked:
Where Pat gets information is frequently a tough question, particularly seeing how frequently it is contradicted by people who actually know what they're talking about.
Bert said:
You sound as though "resolving the problem" = "convincing the creator to produce more frequently", rather than dealing with the creator's capabilities. If Jane Slow puts out 12 pages a month, don't schedule her for every issue of a monthly. If Joe Healthproblem can't be counted on to meet any regular schedule, get him to draw a one-shot and don't schedule it until he's done.
If DC chose not to publish it, and if they have the ability to end the contract, I severely doubt that JSC would have much trouble finding another publisher to put out the next issue of Danger Girl.
Kady Mae saed: Frankly, the reasons are sometimes really not the public's business. Joe Writer's wife is going through detox. Fred Secretary made a typo on the due date. Jane Editrix took some of the pages when she was fired. FedEx ate part of the graphic novel. Things don't become the public's concern simply because they make a comic book run late. If the book is going to be late, it behoves the publisher to forewarn the retailer and the end customer that it will be late, and when possible to announce a reasonable new ship date. Any revelation beyond that should be at the discretion of the individual that the revelation is about. The public may be more forgiving of certain reasons, but that doesn't mean those reasons are owed them.

I would add to what Br'er Gertler said that, sometimes, a book is late and the folks who did it aren't entirely sure why...or aren't entirely in agreement why. And it does not promote peace, harmony or getting the following issue done for them to stop writing and drawing, and to start arguing over whose fault it was.

Nat Gertler said:

/// You sound as though "resolving the problem" = "convincing the creator to produce more frequently". ///

That's only one possible resolution, Nat, and not necessarily the right one. Sorry if it seemed I was saying that was the only available purview. Your suggestions are other plausible resolutions. The point being nobody seems willing to do anything at all, which is solving nothing.

Nat further commented:

/// If DC chose not to publish it (meaning DANGER GIRL), and if they have the ability to end the contract, I doubt that JSC would have much trouble in finding another publisher to put out the next issue of DANGER GIRL. ///

As far as the DANGER GIRL book, as an example, I'm also pretty sure that someone (probably Image) would pick it up. But the thing is that DC won't have their resources tied up in that book. That's (theoretically) good for DC, because they can use those resources for another project then- possibly one as successful or even moreso if that project comes out in a timely fashion. That can't happen when moneys are being allocated for printing, solicitations, and such for a book that isn't coming out. Or I could be wrong in that assessment. It just seems to me that has some logic to it.

Jean-Marc Lofficier said:

/// I think that lateness of books is just one more symptom of the fact that (many) editors today are promoted fans who have no real-world publishing experience or training.///

Okay, that makes sense. A lot of people think editors are simply proofreaders / continuity cops / cheerleaders, when there is a vast array of other duties involved. And I would agree that a lot of people in all the positions are lacking the knowledge in the field- not just comic books, but printed media in general in this country.

When I worked for the local newspaper as a photo lab assistant and layout tech, I often had to remind the reporters how to properly use their computers to print out their articles so I could paste them up without having to cut and paste everything to death in order to make it fit. (I also had to constantly remind them what "spell check" was, but that's another story...)

I agree we've lost a lot of the sensibilities of the past. The "inventory" stories being a key thing, IMHO. But as it's been mentioned, the soap opera style of storytelling that dominates the scene today doesn't exactly work well with that kind of work. This doesn't mean it shouldn't be done- after all, say you have 5 monthly BATMAN books, there's no reason one of them is a separate story instead of tying into the damned arc. And again, the "inventory" story is an excellent place to give Jane Slow or Joe Schmoe, Newcomer Talent at Large, a job, just to see what they CAN handle, rather than running the risk of hiring them on a book regularly and seeing them fall on their faces. So yes, the faliure of the companies to use this practice has indeed been rather dertimental.

Jean-Marc continued:

/// Only an inexperienced editor does not factor this in when he launches a project. /// (in reference to the speed of some talents)

Well, I dare say we have had a lot of inexperienced editors in the field in the 1990s. A lot of the more practised, educated editors seemed to move into freelance writing in the mid to late 1980s (Louise Simonson, Ann Nocenti, Roger Stern, etc.), and the best of the veteran editors have all passed on (Archie Goodwin and Mark Gruenwald spring to mind), so there's no one left at these companies to show these younger guys the ropes.

Is there any wonder why there's tension between the writers and editors?

Seriously though, Jean-Marc: Hasn't comics been done by fans for fans since the 1970s? What exactly caused the loss of these practices?

>>Pat said: >>Re: Moore He owns the line of books in question; if he
hired artists he KNEW couldn't maintain a monthly schedule, it's still
his fault.<<

Alan owns the line and hired the artists? I'd be interested in where you
came by this information (since it goes against everything in the
contract Alan and I signed with WILDCTORM and all my subsequent
experiences with ABC).<<

The books are creator-owned and copyrighted to Moore. If that doesn't give him control over creative personnel and scheduling, what's the point of creator-ownership?

Best, Pat

>>Lesson no. 1: inventory. What happened to buying inventory? Every
magazine I've ever worked for has inventory.<<

Allow me to quote from the conversation I had with DC's production folks in the most recent CBG:

-----------------
CBG: Back in the 1970s, going back some 25 years--and even into the '80s--it was not unusual to have inventory material that could be dropped in if a book got late. Has that concept pretty much gone by the board?

BRUNING: To the degree that it was employed 25 years ago, I think it has. There was a much more generic approach to how comics were produced back then--and I don't mean that necessarily in a derogatory sense. In the first three or four decades of this industry, the model was that you had a Superman story in every issue of Superman, but it didn't have to have anything to do with the story in the next issue. Every issue was stand-alone. Television used to be more episodic, too; you could run the episodes in just about any sequence at one time. As comics have gone to a more serialized form of story telling, that has limited our flexibility to some extent.

Instead of commissioning inventory stories as we used to do--I'm not sure what to call the process. I f you know your artist can't make the deadline, the editor and writer come up with a story that can be done by another artist tells a story from the past that has bearing on the current storyline or something like that.

CBG: You create sort of "insert arcs"?

BRUNING: Right. We did it fairly sloppily in the early '80s--they were fill-in issues and they smelled like fill-in issues. We've struggled mightily to give them a little more resonance and a little continuity.

JERES: I think Starman's "Times Past" interludes are a real good example of an editor who had an artist who could not quite handle 12 issues a year. James Robinson and Archie Goodwin came up with a way to give Tony Harris breaks at the right points in the story and create recurring interludes that made sense for the artist.

BRUNING: As the current generation of artists are less driven by the deadline every 30 days, come hell or high water, we've had to be more creative about this kind of scheduling from day one. We may very well start a title knowing full well that the lead artist will do issues 1 through 4, not number 5, then 6 through 9, not 10...and it's OK. You both maximize the artist's time and build in fresh, exciting little things. You can get an issue by Mike Mignola or somebody who reflects the tone of that special story for that issue.

JERES: And it's not a disappointment for the readers.

BRUNING: It actually enriches the experience. We've learned a lot of tricks to help the process.

---------------

Unfortunately, it seems, many artists are unwilling to admit that they cannot handle the schedule they are given.

Best, Pat

>>You sound as though "resolving the problem" = "convincing the creator
to produce more frequently", rather than dealing with the creator's
capabilities. If Jane Slow puts out 12 pages a month, don't schedule
her for every issue of a monthly. If Joe Healthproblem can't be counted
on to meet any regular schedule, get him to draw a one-shot and don't
schedule it until he's done.<<

Jane and Joe should each know their own capabilities, and not accept assignments that call for schedules they cannot meet. THAT is where the creator's professionalism comes in, Nat.

Best, Pat

There's one point not brought up in this rather energetic discussion about lateness...what happens when the publisher breaks its promises to the creators about payment?

A "typical scenario"..."publisher X" wants to put out a 12 page story inside a collection. They draw up a contract that states the artist will be paid X dollars up front, and then X dollars when the first 4 pages are turned in, X when the next and X when the last are turned in. Artist waits for upfront check, is told by editor to start work, check will be along. No check, first three pages are done. Artist says, "where is check", editor says, well things are screwy, so send in pages, well pay you half when second three pages come in, half when the rest is finished, thats what we decided after you signed the contract"

Sounds like a recipe for lateness to me, and is often the way creators are treated by publishers. Why, some turn in the work, get it published, dont get paid and THEN are told its unacceptable!

Good topic, guys. Now that I've had some time, I think I'll post a longer answer.

Pat says:


I guess you didn't read what I wrote. I said the fans will deal with the lateness, as will the retailers. Yes, sometimes a little lateness can create excitement, but normally it creates anger or disinterest. If ABC's comics are late, they will lose fans and sales. Retailers, gotta love 'em, will try to second guess how far sales will drop from issue to issue. The later you are, the few copies they are going to order, esp. in the current marketplace where retailers are looking for 110% sell-thru.

What's the best ad for Think-Fast Man issue 14? A really good Think-Fast Man 13. And the further appart they are, the less well that ad will work. (Which is why movies are going to video so quickly now.)

So, have I seen Alan Moore "lose assignments" for any reason? If by that you mean "fired", then no, I don't know that he's ever been fired while working in comics. But in a way, he has lost both "1963" and "Big Numbers", reguardless of why those books never shipped. I wouldn't be surprised to find he finished the scripts for both of them.

The fans (and the retailers who serve them) decided how late is too late, and when to dig in and wait and when to move on. When enough of them move on, the comic becomes unprofitable, and everyone soon loses the assingment.

Personally, I think if Danger Girl shipped monthly from issue one it would be in the top 10 titles every month and would probably have gotten a movie option by now, if not more. A much stiffer fine than a reduced page rate.

Todd Frye asks:


I don't know, but the only people I know who've even tried were Stan Lee, Jim Shooter and that guy that wrote most of the comics for Neal Adam's Continitiy Comics.

Which leads into my favorite late comic story: Crazyman 1 had hose ads proclaiming it as "coming soon" and a preview as well. Crazyman shipped three years later. The kicker is that the artist had been dead for two years. So we know he wasn't holding things up.

Chris Medellin wisely chimed in with


Worse, think of the horrid comic they do if the artist was supposed to be depicting something happy or exciting, but inside they just felt so bad. Hopefully the inker could do something with it.

The tread started comes back in with:


In addition to the idea that comic was advertised to retailers with a certain creative team (and a big change would probably make the comic returnable) in the
old days if there was no inventory story, they just whipped something together, some times it was almost as good as a normal issue of the comic, sometimes it was not very good at all, but what did a bunch of twelve-year-olds care?

This reminds me of a more resent comic. I think it was called Hell Shock. Anyway, I'd purchased issue one and taken it home only to find out they STILL hadn't finished issue one. What I had was a few pages of story and a scrapbook-like section and a request to come back for issue 2 when "things will really get rolling". And this comic was by a star, at the time, and I don't know what he does anymore, but the fans didn't turn it into the next Spawn.

JM speaks:


Probably some truth to why the editors can't seem to get the books out on time, but it also points us back to some basic facts: The writer writes the story, the artists draws it, the editor gets it to the printer on time. If a book is late, it's more the editors fault than anyone else. Back to the origional question, should the editor have "I'll cut your pay if you are late" as one of his tools to motivate? Maybe, but that seems redundant as his pay is already being cut because of lost customers and fewer issues per year.

Nat Gertler points out:


But in doing so, DC would show a commitment to being on time, and other DC books would probably shape up for a little while IF being on time was at all within their means. And the new publisher would know that JSC is habitually late, and treat him accoringly.

Louis Bright-Raven who started this thread (about punishing late artists, which seems odd coming from an artist) added:


Someone wisely pointed out to me that the Silver Age really was all about Second Generation creators who grew-up with comics. This is why the later ages are so hard to pin point, but I'd still like to try.

Rik
I reserve the right to edit my posts.

Pat said:>>The books are creator-owned and copyrighted to Moore. If that doesn't give him control over creative personnel and scheduling, what's the point of creator-ownership?<<

The latest issue of TOMORROW STORIES is trademarked and copyrighted 1999 "America's Best Comics, LLC."

The ABC deal I signed for GREYSHIRT, which to the best of my knowlege is the same signed by Alan and all the other ABC creators, is a Work Made For Hire deal.

I don't have a copy of LOEG handy to check the indicia, but I do know that title was originally created prior to the ABC deal and brought into the line after a few issues were in the can so that it became the first released ABC book. It is possible that particular title might be a different deal, I don't know.

I am puzzled by the strange certitude you bring to your opinion that Alan is at fault for any delays in the ABC books, Pat. Is this something the folks at DC claimed during your recent interviews or in background briefings?

------------------
Rick Veitch
Invites You To Read THE DAILY RARE BIT FIENDS
updated every day along with news of the world's most popular artform!
THE COMICON.COM DAILY SPLASHis always refreshing!
www.comicon.com/splash

{quote]The point being nobody seems willing to do anything at all, which is solving nothing.[/quote]To assume that nothing is being done to avoid late books because there are late books is like assuming that doctors aren't trying to save lives, because there are still obituary columns.
There aren't as many resources being tied up in a book that comes out 4 times a year as one that comes out 12... and in the case of Danger Girl, those 4 issues are apt to sell better than the 12 issues of whatever is likely to replace it. (Printing a book that isn't coming out is pretty damn cheap!)

Pat: Which has what to do with your rant about solicitation, exactly? Often, these late artists are made late by something earlier on in the process, or by the editor or publisher ignoring what they've been told by the creator to expect. If Joe Penciller gets the script to WackyFrogGuy a week late, does that mean he should only be a week late returning it? No, because during that week he shouldn't have to be earning nothing, and besides once the script is late he might have no clue as to when it will actually arrive. So he agrees to draw a fill-in issue of BigHeadCatGuy, and that eats up the next three weeks of his schedule. That's the sort of thing that happens in reality.