From the respectable Peter David:
Maybe not solely, but certainly enough to result in "Tomcats" being the number 4 movie in America...
Which means that somewhere around a million people saw it, which is well less than 1% of the people in this country who went to see a heavily-promoted film. And I can't even say for sure that all of those few viewers choose to avoid literature; many of us chose to take in a range of entertainment and the arts. Just because someone saw
Tomcats, I won't assume that they are "against anything that is not actively ignorant."
But if they read a review of a comic book, their reaction may well be, "Oh, but *I don't read comics.*"
For some of them, but for some of them it may come with a "but maybe I should". Some may be intrigued by the whole concept of a comic they can take seriously. Goodness knows I've seen that reaction plenty from folks who are not normally comics buyers (Maus being the most common example of what they take to, but I've also seen it for Sandman, for Watchmen, and for various other works.)
Positive reviews of "Cavalier and Klay" made the book a top seller. You can't possibly convince me that it would have had the same sales success if "Cavalier and Klay" had been a graphic novel instead.
It doesn't have to the the
same sales success to indeed be getting readers who aren't generally reading comics. I haven't seen anyone here saying that no one resists comics.
We don't have to win over everyone to increase our sales. We just have to win over some folks.
And from there we slide on down to Pat O'Neill
Those folks will not be impressed by the term "graphic literature" or by a page of comics that takes ten minutes to read
Ah, is this psychic-Pat talking or expert-Pat?
On to Kim:
JIMMY CORRIGAN has been at that level at Amazon consistently for the last many months. In any event, I don't think they adjust their figures THAT fast (as in, reflecting sales from the early part of the day).
Actually, they do. Their sales stats are updated hourly (at least for their top sellers; I think they mess with the lower numbers less often. I currently have a book that gets into their top 1000 ranking from time to time, and I can watch its ranking droop or pick up during the day. However, it's not just sales for the past hour. It's some formula based on how many they've sold and how recently they've sold them.) As I write this, Corrigan is up to #118, even though they don't have copies on hand and expect to take 1-2 weeks to get them.
And then we get Heidi:
Finally, Nat, I honestly didn't start this thread as another Pat-bashing fest.
Does that means that his comments should somehow be immune from criticism? Or that we're supposed to forget his history and general attitude?
Previous Topic
Index