so what is an independent comic?

Fysh

Yes, but that's only if you accept the notion of "comics = North American comics". Which, having grown up with British, Spanish and to a lesser extent some European comics as reading material, is a notion I find not only objectionable but counter to the interests of anyone who genuinely enjoys comics. The Direct Market model is a horribly restrictive one when it comes to diversity of material, and the only fans who benefit from it are those nostalgia-obsessed folks who want all their comics to be rehashes of the stuff they read as kids, and if at all possible would also like the material to be kind of inaccessible to anyone who didn't also read that stuff as kids.

Why not just say "indepenent = no money up front?" or "independent = without the backing/support of an existing publishing company"? Why buy in to this notion that Marvel and DC are the intrinsic core of comics as a medium, just because they've dominant specifically in the niche market that is superhero comics? It's like saying "Well, Penguin publish a lot of classic literature, so let's call anything from earlier than the 20th century not published by Penguin 'independent literature'."

If the term "independent" still retains any meaning in comics (or any medium for that matter) that meaning must be connected to the ideals or philosophy behind those making independent comics; if it's just a matter of which publisher's name is on the cover then we can safely say that it means nothing of any importance.

magwea

Fysh wrote: »

Yes, but that's only if you accept the notion of "comics = North American comics".

Well, that is the context the Marvel/DC heads are trying to describe -they are not talking about comics as a whole- therefore it is neither a wrong way of describing the situation of their comics ghetto within which the big two are the core of the medium, nor an arrogant view, perhaps just slightly narrow minded. On the flip side, the idea that the term independent is being sullied by some fanboys is both.

Fysh

"Slightly narrow-minded" is a bit too generous a term for some of the points of view I've seen expressed around the place, which essentially boil down to "if a comic's not about superheroes, what's the point of reading/creating it?".

That being said, you seem to be taking me for someone who thinks that being "independent" is a badge of merit. If anything, I think the aggressive dialogue about "independents" vs "mainstream" isn't going to have any useful positive effect on the medium as a whole, because the whole conversation seems to be underpinned by an assumption that one type or the other are inherently superior.

magwea

I entirely agree with your statement, they wouldn't be fanboys if they weren't narrow minded.

The second part not so much. Within the direct market, the realm of the fanboy, their is effectively no independent presence: the debate of "independents" vs "mainstream" has already been won.

Again disclaimer, its an entirely different picture outside of the direct market, and ditto the world of comics as a whole. Nevertheless, why deny the nomenclature of the fanboy within their own realm.

Putting on my antagonist hat, again, what is the self-appellation of being independent other then a slightly dubious badge of merit?

Fysh

magwea wrote: »

Putting on my antagonist hat, again, what is the self-appellation of being independent other then a slightly dubious badge of merit?

I'm confused, I think this is the same question I was trying to ask you

As a reader, I don't think that being independent makes much of a difference to what lands on the shelf.

It depends on what influence publishers and editors have, or are perceived to have, on the final product. The supposed importance of "independent" material rests on the perceived purity of the material being created, with the assumption being that it hasn't had changes forced upon it to increase its marketability.

The problem being that being free from that interference also means being unable to make use of their extensive resources such as editors, marketing people and printers.

brianthebard

magwea wrote: »

Putting on my antagonist hat, again, what is the self-appellation of being independent other then a slightly dubious badge of merit?

don't you think its more a statement of intent by the artist/producer?One that suggests this piece shall have an element of artistic purity and was not denigrated in pursuit of market share?(sidenote:in 'i feel sick'#2,by J.Vasquez the artist clearly displays the pressure and interference of a mainstream comic company in the artists work and how soul destroying it is to endure for him)one could also say that there are shades of marxism in the production of independant comics,insofar as the means of production are placed in the artists hands and they make a direct link with the reader?(have i lost everyone yet?)

magwea

How can you say this:

Fysh wrote: »

I don't think that being independent makes much of a difference to what lands on the shelf.

And then say this:

Fysh wrote: »

The problem being that being free from that interference also means being unable to make use of their extensive resources such as editors, marketing people and printers.

magwea

brianthebard wrote: »

don't you think its more a statement of intent by the artist/producer?One that suggests this piece shall have an element of artistic purity and was not denigrated in pursuit of market share?

Sure, but that would require a certain amount of poopooing of mainstream comics, which is exactly what Fysh was alluding to in his "independents" vs "mainstream" fear.

As for the Marxism spiel care to elaborate.

brianthebard

magwea wrote: »

Sure, but that would require a certain amount of poopooing of mainstream comics, which is exactly what Fysh was alluding to in his "independents" vs "mainstream" fear. As for the Marxism spiel care to elaborate.

why is that poopooing necessarily bad though?(assuming you think it is?)the artist is making a decision about how they want their work produced,and may decide independent publishing means they have the most control.Why is this a good thing?Because it allows the reader to see the clearest expression of the artist.As for the marxism,i thought i did elaborate?One of the tenets of marx is the taking back of the means of production.An artist who takes the production of a comic into their own hands is doing just that.Hope that helps.

Jack B. Badd

brianthebard wrote: »

don't you think its more a statement of intent by the artist/producer?One that suggests this piece shall have an element of artistic purity and was not denigrated in pursuit of market share?

brianthebard wrote: »

the artist is making a decision about how they want their work produced,and may decide independent publishing means they have the most control.

How many independently produced comics are a result of the creator wilfully making a decision to maintain "artistic purity", as you put it, and how many are a result of the creator having little or no choice in how they get their work published? Realistically, I would think that a significant number of comics published independently are done so because that's the only way they will ever be published. Ditto for other forms of media, like music...

There seems to be a certain romanticism of independent comics running through the above posts that doesn't quite correspond with reality imo.

Fysh

*sigh*

I'll start again, and try to clarify.

When discussing the notion of "independent comics", there is the real-world value of the independent label, and the theoretical value that individuals may place in that label.

I do not personally think that there is any real-world value to the independent label at present.

However, if someone does think there's a value to the independent label and thus some inherent level of quality to any comic which is independent, they have to then reconcile the perceived advantages of independence against its disadvantages.

(Personally, this would mean that unless a publisher was exerting a frankly Stalinist level of control over every product it published, and that the freedom afforded by being independent would be worth the extra work created in having to handle marketing/editing/printing/etc.)

magwea

Fysh wrote: »

When discussing the notion of "independent comics", there is the real-world value of the independent label, and the theoretical value that individuals may place in that label.

I do not personally think that there is any real-world value to the independent label at present.

However, if someone does think there's a value to the independent label and thus some inherent level of quality to any comic which is independent, they have to then reconcile the perceived advantages of independence against its disadvantages.

As always Fysh is on the money, and the voice of reason.

Independent comics is any comic published and distributed independently of established corporate interest, as Fysh said at the very start of the tread. Don't mind my second guessing and foolishness, it was only in the interest of debate. The most interesting point is boldened, see above.

I, however, still think the fanboys have every right to use independent in anyway they see fit. Sheesh, what are we the thought police.

Fysh

Ah, I suppose you're right in that regard. It can get very confusing if different people use the term with different meanings, so I suppose the main thing is for people to try and explain what they mean by it. It's interesting to see the range of interpretations that folks put on the tag, though...

TheMelodyOfRain

Definitions indeed differ from mind to mind. I've been investing serious consideration into beginning a graphic novel and perhaps developing it into a series, and upon doing so I'd regard myself as an independent artist on the grounds that I work completely alone on every aspect of the production process, from drawing to publishing.

chebbo

An independent publisher is a publisher that is independent of, or has not become themselves, a large corporation.

Therefore Image are - indeed - independent.

DC, for example - are not, due to being part of Time/Warner.

Marvel are not because they have become part of a larger corporation.

Mainstream, comics are comic that appeal to the mainstream, therefore - in my book - DC and Marvel are not mainstream. However, Tin Tin and some Random House titles could be considered mainstream.

Comics -as a whole - are not really a mainstram medium at the moment.

Manga are just comics. English or japanese is irrelevent, they are still just comics, and if you asked someone in Japan they would all be just manga.

IMHO

Shane

ztoical

chebbo wrote: »

An independent publisher is a publisher that is independent of, or has not become themselves, a large corporation.

Therefore Image are - indeed - independent.

DC, for example - are not, due to being part of Time/Warner.

Marvel are not because they have become part of a larger corporation.

Mainstream, comics are comic that appeal to the mainstream, therefore - in my book - DC and Marvel are not mainstream. However, Tin Tin and some Random House titles could be considered mainstream.

What about most of the french comics? Most of them would be part of larger corporations in france - alot of the big comics publishers are also the big movie and animation producers in france but because they aren't sold via the whole diamond direct market route they wouldn't be called mainstream by alot fo comic fans.

The reason I started this thread was because it was said that most of the comics from the what are you reading thread weren't independent comics but looking throught the thread its alot of vertigo books that are being mentioned and vertigo being an imprint of DC would be mainstream - we've covered it more in a nuts and bolts sort of way but I guess i was going more for "you looking at comics in a shop and judging by cover alone with no branding [ie no company logo] do you mental judge something mainstream or indie before picking it up"

Its the difference between what is mainstream/independent? and what do people think is mainstream/independent? if that makes any sense.

chebbo wrote: »

Manga are just comics. English or japanese is irrelevent, they are still just comics, and if you asked someone in Japan they would all be just manga.

I've little interested anymore in the whole "what is manga argument" that goes on and on online URL="http://puritybrown.blogspot.com/2008/01/just-to-make-my-own-position-clear.html"]the manga is only for comics made in japan view point[/URL] and [URL="http://tinpan.livejournal.com/100342.html"]the anyone can draw manga side[/URL but I do know its not just as simple as manga is comics otherwise there wouldn't be such up roar over the OEL manga. Is manga a style or genre the never ending argument. Yes manga the word means comics in Japan but it is used in an english speaking context to donate comics from Japan or comics in a certain style.

magwea

Why is mainstream used for the opposite of Independent? Dependent/independent, maybe.

Look up the antonyms of mainstream and you'll know why independent is -falsely- used as a badge of merit.

When it comes to going into the comic shop it is the package design and talent rather then publisher which inform my purchase. A gary panter comic is -mostly- going to be a gary panter comic no matter who publishes it.

ztoical

magwea wrote: »

Why is mainstream used for the opposite of Independent? Dependent/independent, maybe.

Look up the antonyms of mainstream and you'll know why independent is -falsely- used as a badge of merit.

When it comes to going into the comic shop it is the package design and talent rather then publisher which inform my purchase. A gary panter comic is -mostly- going to be a gary panter comic no matter who publishes it.

ah god bless gary and his brain fired on drugs.....anyway I have to admit I actually hate the word independent. When I hear it used it does sound like its a badge of merit or that the artists is trying to rebel against something. I remember going to the Bristol con last year and one of the guys running it explaining how they don't call their small press section small press but independent press cus calling small press was somehow implying it was inferior and I don't get that. Maybe it might strike some that way but for me small press sounds better then independent press.

Fysh

That whole badge of merit thing is rather annoying alright, the same as those twits who can only like obscure bands because somehow popularity taints things.

Then again, there are obviously people who will buy stuff marketed in this way. It's weird, the "indie badge of pride mentality" is based on thinking that the mainstream audience are idiots who couldn't possibly appreciate the greatness of indie comics because they're not dumbed down. But then of course, indie comics try to sell to that same audience. I'm going to assume it's a corrupted version of the DIY-punk ethic from the 70s and 80s, and dismiss it as such.

ztoical

Fysh wrote: »

That whole badge of merit thing is rather annoying alright, the same as those twits who can only like obscure bands because somehow popularity taints things.

Then again, there are obviously people who will buy stuff marketed in this way.

HIPSTERS!!!! Kill them all, before they infect us!

chebbo

Yes I'd agree that most of those big French publishers are not independent as they are part of something larger.

Also, I tend not to refer to Marvel or DC fans as mainstream, as they are a niche in reality.

I think sometimes fans of the larger amercan publishers live in a very small world, and tend to just refere to everything else as indy and the stuff they read as mainstream. However, the fans a comic do not make, and in my opinion both Marvel and DC produce some great books, a few of which I spend my hard earned cash on.

As a small press distributor, i tend to agree that there is nothing wrong with the label of small press. Especially considering that some of the best work in comics right now is coming out of the small press scene. (But I would say that wouldn't I). : )

Shane
www.smallzone.co.uk