One might be a more pressing issue, especially in the United States, but I think they both matter.

Today in his Bloggy Thing, longtime comics writer and writer-about-comics Tony Isabella talks about Watchmen 2. His own feelings seem to be that the creative lineup for the prequels will almost certainly guarantee that they are not in line with his vision of what superhero comics should be. That’s a point I can get behind. But then Tony quotes a reader named Joe Caramanga, who says:

“Just imagine if people cared half as much about health care and poverty in America as they do about preserving the integrity of WATCHMEN…” 

That’s one of those facile pithy comments that really grates on me. And here’s why.

As someone who’s been quite vocal about social and cultural issues, be it health care, peak oil, equal marriage rights, abuse of police power, the corporate destruction of the nation and many others for years, I personally take a smidgen of offense at the implication by Joe Caramanga that those issues are worth caring about, but Alan Moore’s rights as the writer of Watchmen are not. Further, it’s not the “integrity of Watchmen” that I care about, it’s DC’s repeated and increasingly punitive and public abuse and humiliation of Alan Moore as a comics creator and as a human being that fills me with disgust and outrage. I have no horse at all in the race that is the expansion of the “Watchmen universe” as a creative playground for other comics creators — I’m fine with it, as long as ALL THREE of the original signers of the Watchmen contracts are in complete agreement about it and all parties feel they are being treated and compensated equally. Until that happens, I believe it’s morally and ethically wrong for DC to proceed with its plans for Watchmen 2, and will continue to speak out on the issue. And on the catastrophic state of health care in America, and the financial inequity and iniquities so rampant here in Los Estados Unidos. 

— Alan David Doane 

When the recent confirmation of Watchmen Part Deux hit the internet, I could barely manage disappointment. Despite DC Comics best efforts to keep their hands off of this blood-soaked property they rightfully own for 25 years now, it really was just a matter of time.

DC Comics, as a small subsidiary of Time-Warner, is a business and, like all businesses, whether they sell beans or computers or a sense of well-being, their real business is making money. If they make money, they win. If they lose money, they fail. Simple stuff.

I’ve been reading DC Comics since I learned to read. I was a DC kid. We moved around a lot during my childhood and so, in a real way, Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and Green Lantern were more constant as “friends” in my life than people with whom I went to school. Like the weather, no matter where I went, there they were.

I was reading a lot of DC Comics when Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons’ Watchmen came out but I wasn’t interested in it. It didn’t have any of the characters I liked or had ever even heard of and, back in that particular day, that meant a lot. Like most unsuspecting Superman fans, I was emotionally scarred by Moore’s “Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?” and, for a number of years following, I refused to read any comics by this “Al Moore” fellow because [SPOILER WARNING] he killed Krypto and it made me cry. Fool me once…

But the time did come when I did start reading Alan Moore’s comics and what a time it was. Alan Moore made me want to write comics and, in time, that’s exactly what I did. I cherish his comics, his spoken word performances, his novels, his underground magazines…everything. As an author, he has earned my unconditional positive regard. Though I have never met the man, I have feelings regarding him and his work. Irrational? Probably but then most feelings are.

DC Comics’ position on Watchmen has made me uncomfortable for as long as I’ve understood the details. Yes, he signed a contract giving them certain rights (including apparently the right to create sequels or prequels or whatever) but, as has been well-documented, there was no reasonable expectation that these rights would extend unto perpetuity such as they have. Yes, what they are doing is legal. No, it is not fair and, in my judgment, it is also not right.

This cognitive dissonance between my favorite superhero comic publisher and my favorite writer of comics has simmered uneasily in my conscience for years but, honestly, my love for the material kept it from ever coming to a head as it has now. It was wrong of them to retain the rights but they continued to pay him the monies he was due and, as long as Moore was getting paid, that made it OK-er than it might have been.

It is no longer OK.

The problem with having allegiances to a business is that a business is not a person. You can’t reason with it. You can’t appeal to its sense of humanity because it hasn’t got one. Publishing and profitting from material based on concepts that someone created under the premise that he or she would own them someday against the expressed wishes of that creator is not OK. It’s shitty. Shittier than killing Krypto.

And so, I won’t be buying any of these Watchmens books.

But it’s also not enough.

Because, like DC, I’ve convinced myself that it was OK to do something odious under the premise that if something was legal even though it wasn’t right, it was excusable. It wasn’t excusable and, by continuing to support a company who would profit from this kind of questionable ethical practices, I’m became complicit in that in excusable behavior. I paid for the lawyers that kept Alan Moore from owning his work.

And so, until the day that some DC Comics’ representative with the legal authority to do so flies over to Northampton and tears up the contract that has kept Moore a hostage to his work, I will never buy a DC Comic again.

Not in print.

Not in book form.

Not digitally.

Nothing.

Ever.

It’s the last, least and only thing I can do.

— Rob Vollmar 

Rob Vollmar is a writer of and about comics and manga. He is the co-author of two graphic novels with artist Pablo G Callejo (Castaways and Bluesman, both published by NBM) and one with mpMann (Inanna’s Tears, published by Archaia). He has written reviews and analysis for the Comics Journal and is an associate contributing editor for World Literature Today Magazine. He was a founding member of Comic Book Galaxy.

I thought I’d get the hyperbole out of the way right up front. 

Over the past week, the anger and disgust I feel towards DC Comics and the scabs they’re hired to work on Watchmen comics against the intentions and expectations of all the signatories (DC, Moore, Gibbons) of the original contracts that brought the original Watchmen into the world has threatened to get the best of me. I didn’t specifically mention Hitler, but I did point out that Len Wein’s involvement reminds me of Vichy France during World War II. I remember making some comment about DC raping Watchmen’s corpse, and that was probably too over the top, although I think one is entitled to an extreme metaphor or two in circumstances as absolutely and unquestionably wrong as this. That said, I have loved ones in my life that have suffered through the trauma of actual rape, and no, this isn’t quite that horrific an experience. But what is happening here, I do believe, shares common elements with actual rape. Because it’s a more powerful entity asserting its will against the stated, explicit wishes of the victim. Here’s Alan Moore on Watchmen 2:

”What I want is for this not to happen.” 

Does that not sound precisely like what a proper English gentlemen or lady might say with dignity just before being violated?

Make no mistake about it, this is a violation. Anyone who knows anything at all about the last 30 years of comics publishing history knows Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons were supposed to get the rights to Watchmen back. Moore expected it. Gibbons expected it. DC Comics expected it. It’s only because the work was so visionary and so enormous in its impact on an entire industry that DC was able to deliberately and with increasingly visible malice retain the rights to this singular property all these years. Has DC followed the letter of the contract? Absolutely. But the letter of the contract was written and agreed to by all parties entirely unaware of the paradigm shift that was about to occur. As someone else has pointed out this week, the irony lies in the fact that if Moore and Gibbons had merely turned in the slightly-tweaked Charlton homage DC asked for, paid for and was expecting, Moore and Gibbons would have owned all rights to Watchmen free and clear decades ago. It’s undeniable that the punishment Moore has been subjected to by DC in this and other matters (Gibbons seems far more content to play the company game, as is his right) has been intentional, repeated, and now has been stepped up to the point that it is creating a schism that DC Comics may actually come to regret.

To the best of my knowledge, DC never suffered for trying to weasel out of paying royalties to Moore and Gibbons for selling Watchmen merchandise. No one at DC ever took a sock on the jaw for buying Wildstorm from Jim Lee pretty much solely so they could force Moore to work for them, which he did out of concern for his artistic partners, for years. But I am seeing a lot of thoughtful essays and efforts building in strong opposition to Watchmen 2. (And if you’re wondering why I won’t call it “Before Watchmen,” it’s because DC wants me to. It’s Watchmen 2, and it stinks on ice.)

I am disappointed and sickened by the venality and cheap opportunism of the scab workers brought in to create more Watchmen comics. Azzarello. Bermejo. Cooke. Jones. Straczynski. Hughes. Kubert. Kubert. Wein. Lee. Conner. The only real surprises on the list for me are Len Wein and Darwyn Cooke, whose previous comics work had falsely led me to assume that they were thoughtful and decent human beings. Their public comments on this subject, and their willingness to contribute their gifts to something this despicable, have permanently convinced me otherwise. How can you reconcile Darwyn Cooke’s long commitment to quality and decency with his participation in Watchmen 2? You simply cannot. You can, however, as one blogger has done, point out his hypocrisy in a very public and persuasive manner. 

I often differentiate between the artform and the industry of comics. Certainly I see them as two very distinct segments of what we all think of as, simply, “comics.” And when I say that I don’t know why comics does this to its best creators, I mean, all of comics. 

If Watchmen 2 goes forward as planned, we are all to blame. Marvel exploited Jack Kirby for decades while he lived, and continues to do so, and few have done anything about it. By the time DC started repeatedly screwing Alan Moore and even spending untold money to stalk and harass him through the purchase of Wildstorm, many of us were aware enough of the creator’s rights issue to take some note of the wrongness of what went on. But who was strong enough to punish DC for it? Who was outraged enough?

This time, I think it might be different. This time the outrage seems more focused, more mature, and more sustainable. I won’t read Watchmen 2, not even for free, and I suspect many, many others will act similarly. Watchmen 2 is scab comics for scab readers, produced by a corrupt, arrogant management and nothing more. I urge anyone reading this to tell the truth about how DC Comics screwed Alan Moore on Watchmen and other issues for decades, and tell the truth about how enough is enough. You don’t need to mention Hitler, or rape, or even Vichy France. If you tell the plain truth about Alan Moore, DC Comics and Watchmen 2, people will figure it out for themselves. The intelligent and compassionate ones who value human beings over corporate profits won’t support Watchmen 2. The immoral scumbags who are publishing, producing and buying it, frankly, can have it.

If this really is what all of comics is about, letting this happen, then let it happen. But don’t think there won’t be consequences. This might not be the worst thing DC ever did, but it’s certainly the most publicly unethical and obviously wrong. Over the course of this week it has literally made me sick to my stomach. But after all the tweets I’ve written and all the rage I’ve felt, I keep coming back to one small phrase, composed by the most brilliant mind ever to work in comics, who has almost always, by Marvel and DC, and by the “fans” that support them, been treated like nothing more than shit that needs to be scraped off their heels:

”What I want is for this not to happen.”  

What each of us chooses to do, after hearing so plain a declaration, will follow all of us for the rest of our time in comics, however much longer we can stand to be a part of it. 

— Alan David Doane

 

Comic Book Resources has obediently cooperated with Time-Warner corporate superhero comic book publisher DC Comics in revealing the long-ago leaked “news” that DC will publish comic book derivative of Watchmen, a comic book created by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons. Here is the list of scab creators associated with this unethical publishing decision:

Brian Azzarello
Lee Bermejo
Darwyn Cooke
J.G. Jones
J. Michael Straczynski
Adam Hughes
Andy Kubert
Joe Kubert
Len Wein
Jae Lee
Amanda Conner

No comic book reader who believes in creator rights or ethical business practices will buy or read the comics being planned. Writer Alan Moore co-created Watchmen and signed a contract with DC Comics that under normal industry practices of the time would have seen control of the work revert to Moore and artist Dave Gibbons after the work had gone out of print for a period of time, as was the case with every DC graphic novel created under a similar contract up until Watchmen. Because of the unprecedented quality and success of Watchmen, DC has never allowed the work to go out of print, and therefore has retained legal control of Watchmen for decades longer than anyone at the time could have imagined they would have. I’ve said before that DC may have the legal right to create more Watchmen comics, but their ethically dubious stewardship of the property and repeated actions against the interests and wishes of Alan Moore make these comics nothing but the fruit of a poisoned tree.

I once again ask anyone who believes DC is in the wrong here to sign the petition asking the publisher not to create more Watchmen comics until such a time that DC reaches an accord with Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons, and the two fully and freely endorse such work.

I’m disgusted by the long list of scab writers and artists above, who have willingly thrown in their lot against creator rights and in favour of unethical corporate thuggery. Any writer or artist who respects the rights of their colleagues throughout the industry would refuse to work on any derivative works related to Watchmen until DC, Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons are all in agreement on the creation of new Watchmen properties. 

— Alan David Doane 

Claiming it’s like “putting Daniel Craig on the cover of Dr. No,” Godzilla fans are none too pleased by the artist’s new Criterion Collection Godzilla packaging, with a monster that is arguably much more like, or exactly like, the 2002 design, rather than the 1954 original film on the disc. Facebook erupted with demands to “fix the error” or offer an apology, but Criterion stomped to the artist’s defense:

“Artist Bill Sienkiewicz used the original, ‘54 Godzilla as reference for his artwork, but all of the renderings are nevertheless, in the end, Bill’s personal vision of the creature, albeit on…e that is Toho approved. We can see why some viewers consider it to be more akin to the 2002 incarnation of Godzilla because the back plates seem more sharp-pointed and jagged than the curved tips of the ‘54 original, for example, or the tail tapers more to a point, but those plates don’t exactly mirror the ones from the 2002-3 monster either.

We pushed Bill to address Godzilla as a force of destruction, an elemental being, to step away from a rendering that would be purely literal and fetishistic in detail, and think he came up with a terrific interpretation. This is also why there is color in the packaging art. Although the movie is a beautifully-photographed B&W work, we kept leaning towards the elemental aspects of fire and water and wanted the color palette to evoke that.”

I think it’s more interesting that it doesn’t really look much like what comics fans expect of Sienkiewicz’ work, and that he was also hired to provide black-and-white illustrations in the BluRay booklet, which is also kind of an odd use of his talents.

It’s becoming clearer week by week that DC’s New 52 has a lot of problems, and John Rozum’s quitting as writer (scripter?) of Static Shock wasn’t very newsworthy until he started posting on Facebook and his blog about it, because the book wasn’t very good from the start and wasn’t selling well. Failing to turn a C-list superhero into anything more is no crime, and while one would think Rozum’s reputation would survive coming shortly on the heels of his acclaimed (if also not-great-selling) Xombi revival, but I understand him wanting to set the record straight, especially as some folks were cursing him for seemingly killing the chances for Static and the rest of the Milestone characters to integrate successfully into the DC Universe. First, it ain’t his fault, and second, you can be sure that, since DC owns them, they will keep trying to get these characters into the DCU, just as they have with characters who are even tougher fits like The Spirit or Doc Savage. 

But that’s DC’s problem. What I appreciated in Rozum’s post was what a pro the guy was. And sure, maybe in the ’40s or even ’70s or early ’80s, being a pro was synonymous with keeping one’s mouth shut about the company who hired you. But Rozum doesn’t say anything bad about DC. He’s merely giving his side of the story regarding an untenable working situation with one particular editor, Harvey Richards, and longtime workman artist, first-time plotter, Scott McDaniel. In the spirit of Rozum, I’ll practice some rare restraint here and not disparage either of them, and will instead just commend Rozum on his honesty and integrity and wish him much better success with future projects. He also points out that his acclaimed revival of the Milestone character, Xombi, with art by the great Frazer Irving, is due out from DC in February, so keep an eye out for that.

I’ve been writing and editing articles and posts about comics for about 14 years now, all told. I don’t think I’ve ever been prouder of any piece I’ve been involved with than today’s Flashmob Fridays piece on Harvey Pekar’s new and final graphic novel, Cleveland.

Excellent writing abounds from Christopher Allen, Roger Green, Scott Cederlund, and Johanna Draper Carlson. I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed bringing it to you. Go read Flashmob Fridays on Harvey Pekar’s Cleveland.

— Alan David Doane

Writer - Brandon Graham

Artist - Simon Roy

Publisher - Image Comics/Extreme. $3.99

I’m old enough to remember the two months that Rob Liefeld’s Prophet was relevant. Without doing any research (both laziness and in support of not supporting SOPA/PIPA), I think it was about issue #7 or 8, when the original creative team abandoned the book to a flash-in-the-pan artist, Stephen Platt, who had some major flaws but had an appealing style that was kind of a more compact Todd McFarlane. I went along with the crowd and got the book without having to pay much more than cover price, liked the art but not the story, and then waited for the next issue, which I think took over a month to arrive, and when it did, I don’t think Platt did all the work. And before too long, he was gone on to other things, and really has had very little comics work since. The series apparently made it to issue #20, but not many people really cared by that time (though in today’s numbers, it probably would be a big hit).

Say what you want about Liefeld, but he’s not an idiot, and he’s always been one to pay others to pump some life into his failing, failed or forgotten creations, be it Alan Moore, Mark Millar, Kurt Busiek, and so on. This time it’s Brandon (King City) Graham, writing, joined by Simon (Jan’s Atomic Heart) Roy on art. 

Is the book any good? Yes, and the good news is that one need not have any prior knowledge of time-lost super soldier John Prophet, and it probably helps if you don’t. Numbering aside, this is written like a first issue, and I give Liefeld and editor Eric Stephenson credit for letting Graham do what he wants here, which is to thrust Prophet into a weird world of multi-jawed monsters to kill and consume and other natives who want to kill, fuck, parley or perform surgery on him. It’s a dense issue, and Roy and colorist John Ballermann are up to the task of creating this strange, savage world. 

I’ve already seen folks calling the book brilliant, but I think we may want to pump the brakes a bit there. Graham does have a unique vision and bless him for wanting to cram a lot into the issue, but he does overload the reader a bit with all the alien names, and with an omniscient narration that actually feels kind of lazy to me. I’d prefer to find more of this out through dialogue between Prophet and the creatures he meets, as well as having Prophet make observations in his own voice, so we can get to know him better. 

Reading this issue, as well as seeing the news that Joe Casey and Nathan Fox are the new creative team on other Image series, Haunt, makes me a little bummed that talented creators like these are still being convinced to expend their energies trying to prop up or revived crappy comics somebody else owns, but hey, it’s their call to make. If someone’s going to do work-for-hire, as a consumer I still want them to put their best effort into it, and although this first issue has some flaws, it’s clear Graham and Roy are invested in the work and there’s some good potential here.

—Christopher Allen

It was morbid curiosity that led me to pick up Peanuts #1 yesterday. Published by the Kaboom kids comics imprint of Boom Studios, the book features what is apparently artwork by Charles Schulz on the cover (it has his signature, anyway), new material by people you’ve never heard of, and a sprinkling of classic Schulz Sunday strips marred by modern colouring techniques.

The new comics blow it on a number of levels, the worst of which is that there’s just no central, guiding philosophy subtly holding it all together, as there was in every single strip Schulz created in the 50 years he wrote and drew Peanuts. The artists capture Schulz’s style here or there, in this panel or that, but it feels random and wrong, as do character motivations and actions. The varying panel shapes also seem out of sync with what we think of as Peanuts. A half-century of consistency and clean design won’t be shoved aside by the sub-par attempts to do something new, here.

Speaking of wrong, the “How to Draw Charlie Brown” feature — the idea of which is kicky and fun — is made of wrong. Told from Lucy’s perspective, it’s mean and negative to a degree that shows a complete inability to appreciate — never mind emulate — Schulz’s judgment and creative discipline. He always knew exactly how much was enough, and where the line was, and this petty, shitty approach doesn’t know either.

We all know Lucy thinks Charlie Brown is fat and stupid. We don’t need her telling us that relentlessly for page after page, going on about his sausage fingers and stupid, round head. This one feature would keep me from sharing the book with a child, and sent me to the credits to look for any evidence that Schulz’s widow or estate had a hand in this. There’s no indication that they were consulted or had any approval, and I have to guess that they did not, and that therefore the book should be avoided not only for reasons of quality, but out of respect for the memory and wishes of Charles M. Schulz.

As I mentioned, there’s a few pages of badly coloured classic Schulz Sunday strips thrown in, in-between the lousy new material. It fails to distract from the deficiencies in the new work, although that surely was the intention. It’s nice that Kaboom wants to introduce new readers to the great life’s work of Charles Schulz. They could do far better than they’ve done in Peanuts #1. They could, for instance, recommend a volume of The Complete Peanuts from Fantagraphics Books. They’ve been doing Peanuts right for years, and it’s a shame that Kaboom doesn’t seem to have absorbed a whit of inspiration from the classy, engaging volumes Fantagraphics issues twice a year. I understand the wish to bring Peanuts more into the modern era. That is to say, I understand that this is what they were trying to do. They have failed. This is a book that fails to honour the memory of one of the greatest cartoonists of all time, that fails to provide quality comics for kids, and that is best avoided by readers old and new.

— Alan David Doane

I recently found myself agreeing — as I often do — with Tony Isabella on the issue of the Best American Comics series of annual anthologies. Tony’s recent blog post took the series and editors Jessica Abel and Matt Madden to task for not being truly representative of comics in North America. While I was initially excited about the series, year after year I’ve been more disappointed and felt more distant from it, and Tony nicely summed up why: