Spoiler Alert

OK, I'm not trying to split hairs here, but something Dan DiDio said in his most recent interview column over at Newsarama gave me pause. Regarding the revelation that Nekron is the antagonist of Geoff Johns's Blackest Night event, DiDio explains his stance on spoilers:

We also put out information to drum up and excite readers, and to get people interested. And that Nekron issue is at the halfway mark of Blackest Night. So we wanted to get out there and show people there's a big change and something occurring within the series, and it's not just repeating the same beats over and over again. There is progression in the story. That's why you get information released like with Nekron.

In essence, DiDio is arguing that spoilers increase interest. Fair enough. That's why people read them: because they are interested. Cynically, one could add that one might seek out spoilers because the stories in question are not worth reading in themselves but a lifetime of continuity-fetishization has created an addiction to the minutiae of the ongoing adventures of certain characters or universes.

But then Mr. DiDio adds this:

This is part of an argument we had back when I had stated there were 52 multiverse worlds as part of the ending of 52. What did that mean? What did that give away? What did that spoil? Not really sure. But it did generate a lot of interest in the end of the book. And that's what we were hoping to do.

I think DiDio is playing some word games here. A little Clintonian "It depends on your what your definition of the word 'is' is." He's clearly playing coy because a spoiler, in his newfound sense of the word, is the story itself. If telling readers that one of the endings of 52 would involve the return of the multiverse isn't a spoiler in his mind, then what is? If I told him that Hamlet dies at the end of Hamlet, but not how or why, it's still a revelation that is housed within the plot. Whether or not it diminishes his/my/your enjoyment is secondary. Mr. DiDio didn't disclose the means by which the universes would be restored, or what alternate versions of DC characters they would house, but he told fans what the ending would be. That Hamlet would die.

It's clear why, though, from his earlier statement. "What did that spoil," he asks - disingenuously, I think. Mr. DiDio is a smart man. He knows that he gave away a significant plot point for the purpose of generating interest in the hopes that the interest would translate into sales. The battle between art and commerce once again. I agree with his implication that certain spoilers won't significantly affect one's enjoyment of their entertainment of choice. And I am also aware that he's dealing with a particular, and peculiar, niche market - if you're the type of person who reads interviews with Dan DiDio (guilty!), you probably were the type of person who figured out that the multiverse would be coming back at the end of 52. And if you're reading super-hero comics (guilty!), you're already in a pretty small niche. Revealing the Nekron is the baddie behind Blackest Night isn't actually a big deal. Some people probably really enjoy the hunt for his appearances back issues, or trying to piece together his current evil plot from previous evil plots. That would signify, certainly, some interest that wouldn't have been there otherwise. But it's also a spoiler. It spoiled the plot, so it's a spoiler. It would be nice to get some candor and not hair-splitting rationalizations of business decisions, but what can you do.

The Last Blacksmiths

   I was saddened reading about a DC panel at the Bristol Comic-Con. The summary, over at CBR, reported the following: 

DiDio reiterated that DC’s business was publishing periodical comic books. Comic books are associated with an experience of holding and reading the physical issue, which cannot be replicated in a digital form, he said. Also, comic books are tied to the “collector gene.” Citing Marvel’s foray into digital comics, DiDio said, “To just dump 5,000 books online seems ridiculous. If everything is on demand, nothing is in demand, and if you have 5,000 things to choose from, you'll end up going to the same one thing you always did.”

DiDio also expressed concern with the difficulties in monetizing a digital distribution system, explaining that calculating royalties for creators would be a major headache.

   That's the reason to avoid digital distribution? Because it's inconvenient? His biggest competitor has been spending tens of thousands of dollars on this, because they are convinced that it will make them even more money, and DC can't be bothered because it's not easy? I'm, quite frankly, astounded. 

   Comics, TV shows, movies, and music are being torrented and downloaded at an increasing rate. I am quite certain that Batman: Battle for the Cowl #3 is being downloaded as I type this. Digital comics are already a thing; creators just aren't getting  paid. I can get that a lot of people are paper fetishists (I'm one myself) and prefer to read comics and books as published in a tangible, inky form. But I'm not everybody. Lots of people like to read on Kindles or even to read last week's issue of Superman on their computer screens. Comics aren't intrinsically a paper product any more than books are: until now, that's just been the best way to distribute them. Sure, they're art, but they're also, usually, commercial products intended to be sold for a profit.

   I can't help but think of Art Spiegleman's remark that he wasn't sure if comics artists are "the vanguard of another culture or if we're the last blacksmiths." I take Spiegelman's point as saying that comics are a particular medium: they are very labour-intensive to produce and demand specific reading strategies that are often at odds with conventional entertainment media. He worries that, instead of being a challenging new way to tell stories and create art, comics are just a very difficult way of being nostalgic.

   For a guy trying to sell funny-books, DiDio seems pretty determined to shrink his audience. If comics are actually valued for their content, then the "wait-for-trade" readers that DiDio so loathes are no different than the Wednesday shoppers. The means of distribution - pamphlet, trade paperback, digital iComic - doesn't matter. He seems, to my eyes, to be relishing the role as the last blacksmith. If comics are, as DiDio claims, primarily an outlet for collecting, then they're no different then stamps or coins. They are a product whose value is completely unrelated to its content. Rarity is the only thing that creates demand for collector's items. That's even worse than what Spiegleman was suggesting. In his lamentation, at least the creators are invested in a craft. 

   Really, it boggles my mind. It's pretty rare to see a businessman arguing that he won't sell a product because he can't figure out how. No one, apparently, is less enamoured with the DCU than its Executive Editor.

Wanna Start a Fight?

   On his awesome blog two days ago, Tom Brevoort made note of something he read on the Internet:

Read a piece over the weekend in which, in speaking about a particular project that had recently been completed to some acclaim, an editorial personality complimented the sales, marketing and production teams, as well as himself and his fellow editors, on the success of the series. One group, however, was missing from his litany of back-patting:

 

The creators.

He makes a good point, and doesn't dwell on the disagreement or on the source of the information. He's airing a professional difference of opinion, and trying to make a point without being overly snide. But, come on. I also read Dan DiDio's 20 Answers and 1 Question over at Newsarama, where just three days previously, DiDio made the following statement: 

The concept that I am not proud of 52 is ridiculous. Anybody here who knows me knows that the minute issue #52 of 52 hit my hands was one of my proudest moments at DC Comics. It's something that I was involved in from the very inception of the project, and made sure that everything worked perfectly in order to achieve that. It was a project and process that we all worked for. It was the editors, the sales department, the marketing department, the production department. Every single person who worked on 52 is intensely proud of their work on that production. When we started it, we were not sure if we were going to be able to achieve our goals, and we exceeded them.  So again, any statement being said about me not being proud of 52 is erroneous.

We know who you're writing about Brevoort! You can't fool us by casually obscuring the object of your wrath!

In context, DiDio's comments are referring to Mark Waid's interview over at Ain't It Cool News and Waid's point about how DiDio felt about 52. Waid points out the DiDio was, perhaps, not the biggest fan of the project:

The biggest challenge was actually, wisely, kept from us by Steve. EIC Dan Didio, who first championed the concept, hated what we were doing. H-A-T-E-D 52. Would storm up and down the halls telling everyone how much he hated it. And Steve, God bless him, kept us out of the loop on that particular drama. Siglain, having less seniority, was less able to do so, and there's one issue of 52 near the end that was written almost totally by Dan and Keith Giffen because none of the writers could plot it to Dan's satisfaction. Which was and is his prerogative as EIC, but man, there's little more demoralizing than taking the ball down to the one-yard line and then being benched by the guy who kept referring to COUNTDOWN as "52 done right."

 

   Everyone here is, of course, espousing his own particular point of view and no one is calling anyone else a liar or an idiot. Well, Waid gets pretty close. But what's most interesting is to note the different emphasis each professional editor makes. Brevoort takes the piss out of DiDio a bit, but makes a pretty convincing argument that the editor isn't much of anything without creators. Point well made, and point well taken. Waid, similarly, remarks how Steve [Wacker] kept the already-difficult creative process of 52 from being even more of a hassle by shielding the "brain-trust" from the wrath of the Executive Editor.

   DiDio, on the other hand, is trying to play spin doctor. We see DiDio and Joe Quesada do this every week, and it's pretty great of them to make the time. Well, Quesada just quit his weekly column on MySpace, but he has been doing it on and off for years now and will probably be back sooner or later. I'm not trying to attack DiDio here, or at least not trying to, but Brevoort makes a pretty good point. DiDio is so concerned with ass-covering that he misses the point that I infer Waid was making: as a company, DC is a bit heavy-handed. 

   Yes, Marvel has plastered a Dark Reign banner on everything and everyone there seems constantly a-twitter about the editorial retreats that they go on all the time. But the one impression I was left with after reading DiDio's interview was this particular statement of his: 

So when you say "editorial mandate," please understand that whatever book you hold in your hand, at the end of the day, is there because of an editorial mandate to create that book. End of story.

   Again, I get his point. Editors do more than shuttle paper around the office. But, it's NOT the end of the story. The editor, in fact, is NOT TELLING THE STORY. I think that I'm more persuaded by Brevoort's point that, yes, editors do more than shuttle paper around but the most important part is to be finding the balance between dramaturge, babysitter, advocate, and taskmaster. You can tell this because of my impartial use of capital letters for emphasis. Maybe this is because DiDio fancies himself a bit of a writer (remember how, earlier, I said I didn't want to attack him? Well, here I do: his piece in the DC Holiday Special was the worst thing I 

have read in a long time, and I collected X-Force when Jeph Loeb tried to explain Shatterstar's origin). Or maybe it's because he feels constantly maligned. Regardless, I think my biggest problem with DC these days can be encapsulated in DiDio's interview. I don't care if everything DC has published in the last 7 years has all been one glorious mosaic, all planned from the very beginning and all directed toward geeky bliss. I don't care if everything fits together, if it's all one grand universe in which reading each comic they publish will enrich the experience of every other.

   I just want DC to publish better comics. If Countdown and Trinity, or even the DiDio-edited Teen Titans, are comics where the editors are more important than the creators, maybe I'd rather DiDio did just organize his pencil drawer.