Quick Thought on The Beat's Assessment of the "Comics Game"

250px-The_New_52

Sigh. I posted a comment on The Beat's article on how DC's New 52 might have had a big hand in saving comics, but they won't seem to approve the comment, despite the approval of several comments that arrived after mine. I know, that's obsessively fanboyish of me, but I hardly ever comment on online pieces at all. Maybe they're looking for the right thing to say in reply, or maybe they disagree so harshly, they want me to shut up and go away. Anyway, my point wasn't with the meat of the piece itself, but something that was said in closing, by the author:

I think the books that are doing well are doing well because they have top talent on top creators; the books that aren’t doing so well have less than top talent. That’s pretty much how this comics game works.

That statement gave me pause. Here's the comment that I left in response:

This statement is incredibly insulting to great creators with low-selling books and too complimentary of lesser creators who happen to have hitched themselves to a sales rocket.

It’s only partially, marginally true that talent=sales. Concept/characters still play a massive part in getting folks to part with their cash. The rest is that mercurial thing of just happening to be the right book at the right time (or the wrong book at the wrong time, for the low-sellers).