164 2010 Comic Sales

The 2010 sales numbers are in, and pretty much everyone has had something to say about them. I don’t have too much to add, but here’s a couple of points that I want to expand upon.

First, I don’t think it can be overstated what a tremendous impact Geoff Johns, Grant Morrison and Brian Bendis have on mainstream comics. Douglas Wolk points out that the 26 best-selling DC single issues were all written by Morrison or Johns, and if you look at the top of Marvel’s charts, Bendis rules the roost over there. In fact, taken as a group, Sean T. Collins points out that 65 of the top 75 best-selling comics of the year were written by one of three people.

I also don’t think it can be overstated how unhealthy this is, though I’m not sure who it says more about: the industry or the fan base. I’d like to believe that it isn’t the fault of the fans, that Marvel and DC are just shooting themselves in the foot here. Banking on three people for all of your output sounds like a bad creative decision and an even worse business model, and I don’t really believe that’s something fans want. Logic dictates that the more kinds of comics there are the better comics will be overall, and that the more people creating comics, collaborating with and challenging each other, the better the stories will be. If fans are that easy to please, that lazy, there’s nothing to stop companies from continuing that practice.

But you can see from the numbers that it isn’t necessarily something fans are looking for: as Collins also points out, Marvel has a few other writers sporadically break through in the top 75 comics, like Jonathan Hickman, Ed Brubaker and Matt Fraction. Over at Newsarama, J. Caleb Mozzocco talks briefly about this phenomenon.

Marvel seems to be doing a pretty good job of grooming newer talents over a period of years, so it’ s not impossible to imagine the likes of Matt Fraction or Ed Brubaker or Dan Slott or Jonathan Hickman or Jeff Parker or Fred Van Lente or Jason Aaron or Andy Diggle eventually killing Brian Michael Bendis and taking his power (I think that’s how it works in comics), but DC doesn’t seem to have quite as deep a pool of writing talent at the moment. I don’t mean that as a criticism of the men and woman writing for DC at the moment. I’m not saying, like, Parker and Van Lente rule, while Peter Tomasi and Tony Bedard drool or anything; I’m simply referring to the various writers’ ability to sell books in the direct market based on their name recognition, and the publishers investing their writers with particular portfolios.

I mean, I guess if Mozzocco won’t go there, I will: Parker and Van Lente are better writers than Tomasi and Bedard. Marvel has done a significantly more impressive job of cultivating talent than DC has. I think there’s probably reasons for that– maybe DC doesn’t see the need to expand outside of Johns and Morrison right now, considering how well it’s working out for them– but for both companies this seems disastrous if it moves into the long-term.

My second quick point is about the “graphic novels” charts, in which Erik Larsen points out that nine of the top ten were creator owned books. Impressive? Maybe not, says Collins.

Of course, the flip side of this is that NINE of the TOP TEN graphic novels in 2010 had major Hollywood properties to thank for much of their notoriety, Walking Dead, Kick-Ass, and Scott Pilgrim among them. (The tenth was a Superman book that got over with mass audiences largely on the strength of a fortuitous press comparison to Twilight.) I don’t mean to short-change the success of Robert Kirkman, Tony Moore, Charlie Adlard, Mark Millar, John Romita Jr., and Bryan Lee O’Malley, but proponents of creator ownership and creators’ rights probably ought not break out the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner just yet.

That’s sort of missing the forest for the trees, isn’t it? Yes, creator-owned properties are experiencing a surge in Hollywood recognition, but at the same time, creator-owned properties are experiencing a surge in Hollywood recognition. That’s a huge deal, and if it translates to higher sales that isn’t something that should be discounted. It’s not as if Scott Pilgrim or Walking Dead were Hollywood properties first. They gained enough popularity or notoriety to be considered a viable product to mass market audiences. I think Larsen’s point is spot-on, and the charts are telling us exactly what they appear to be telling us. I’m not saying “Mission Accomplished,” but it’s an impressive opening salvo.