Snark Lightning
First things first. I like Graeme McMillan a great deal.
Although I've never met him in person, I consider him one of my
favorite
columnists,
bloggers, and
message
board posters. And the
fact that he posts in my sad little forum even more frequently than I
do has earned him a special place in my heart. A great deal of
his charm comes from his special, patented blend of Scottish snark, but
what happens when that withering snarkiness is directed at a target I
like rather than at Mark Millar?
Answer: I get that strange conflicted feeling inside, much like
when
it was announced that Grant Morrison was writing an X-Men comic for
Marvel.
Over
on his blog today, Graeme posted the following excerpt from
SBC's
interview with Tony Isabella:
"DC’s first and best step towards making Black Lightning
successful
would be to get past their territorial posturing and bring me back in
on this property. I might not have all the answers, but I know more of
them than DC does... at least where it concerns this special
character... Black Lightning could be a dream come true for the
industry, but DC never promotes the property."
Graeme didn't really comment on this quote, at least not on the main
blog, but I think it's pretty clear what
Graeme was getting at in reproducing it. (If there had been any
doubt, Graeme removed it when he
cracked
in the comments section: "But Black Lightning could be a
dream come true for the industry... IF
HE WRITES IT! Don't you understand? Tony Isabella can save comics!")
On its face, it's a pretty damning quote. Tony Isabella, not
exactly known as a "hot" or "name" creator, thinks he could take a
third- or fourth-string character like Black Lightning and transform
him into a "dream come true for the
industry"? Sounds like a textbook example you'd use to illustrate
the phrase "smacks of arrogance." But as I learned long ago from
a
Mad magazine feature on how movie studios cut and paste
negative reviews into positive blurbs through the miracle of the
ellipsis, one should be suspicious of "dot dot dot"
constructions. So what did Graeme leave out from the original
interview? To provide the full context, I'm going to reproduce
the question Isabella was responding to as well as his full answer:
Markisan Naso: Along with creative
reservations, you have also expressed some financial concerns about
Black Lightning’s future, saying you have no faith in DC to make the
character profitable. What exactly are the details of your contract
with DC? In your opinion, what will make this character successful?
Tony Isabella: I have the contractual right to share in
any/all non-comics profits made from my creation, though DC has, on
occasion, interpreted this in a manner to deny me royalties or a
portion of the royalties I’m owed. That’s as detailed an answer as
you’re going to get from me at the present time.
So many clueless fans are going to jump on this next answer, ignore
every other issue I’ve raised and statement I’ve made, and claim it as
“proof” that I’m only doing this because I am not writing comics any
more. So be it. I knew this interview was gonna be dangerous when I
agreed to do it.
DC’s first and best step towards making Black
Lightning successful would be to get past their territorial posturing
and bring me back in on this property. I might not have all the
answers, but I know more of them than DC does...at least where it
concerns this special character.
Think about it. The entertainment industry is constantly called on the
carpet for not featuring more non-white faces in movies and on TV...and
to show them as headliners and in roles not restricted to the usual
sitcoms and sidekicks. It’s constantly being challenged to show more
positive non-white characters...and to provide greater opportunities to
non-white creators and performers.
Black Lightning could be a dream come true for
the industry, but DC never promotes the property. In the 26
years since I created the character, the company has sold exactly one
option on my creation.
That was to Lorimar, a sister company, and for the bargain basement
price of $3,000...of which I received $300.
On receipt of that check, I contacted DC and asked for details on the
option. I have no particular interest in writing television, but I
wanted to make myself available to whoever had purchased the option and
help them however I could. I was told they had no idea who was in
charge of the project. As near as I could determine, no one at DC ever
followed up on the option. The company’s lack of interest in the
success of Black Lightning was as obvious then as it is now. You can
imagine my frustration and understand why, once a year or so, I write
to DC inquiring about buying Black Lightning back from them or, at the
very least, licensing the character from them for my own projects. This
crass negligence in promoting Black Lightning devalues my contractual
rights in the property.
The portions Graeme quoted are highlighted in
blue.
So the first ellipsis is Isabella's own. But the second ellipsis
obliterates an entire paragraph where Isabella sets up why he thinks
Black Lightning could be "a dream come true for the
industry"--not because Isabella has deluded himself into thinking he's
the savior of the comics industry, but because the Black Lightning
character could be used by DC to address concerns of racial
representation in comics and related licensing. Frankly, I'm
surprised DC isn't doing more to trumpet the fact that they created one
of the earliest African-American superheroes to get his own
title. (The SBC interview claims that Black Lightning was "the
first African-American superhero to get his own title," but I think
Luke
Cage beat Black Lightning for that honor by a couple years (
1972 vs.
1977).)
Yes, perhaps it was a bit egotistical for Isabella to insist that he be
the one to guide Black Lightning to this dream role. After all,
Judd Winick certainly seems to be giving the character plenty of
attention in both
Green Arrow and
Outsiders, so perhaps
Winick would be interested in seeing what he could do with the
character in a solo book. But I'll cut Isabella a little slack
here since he has a personal stake in the character as the creator.
I'm really not trying to take sides on this issue. I don't fully
agree with everything Isabella says in his interview, nor do I
completely disagree with Graeme. I cringe every time Isabella
starts talking about how other creators clearly don't understand Black
Lightning/Jefferson Pierce: Trying to determine what
corporate-owned characters would "really" do is pointless when
corporations can twist those properties however they may desire.
And as
Graeme
pointed out in an earlier column about the Isabella/Black Lightning
brouhaha, it's not just characters of color that DC uses, abuses, or
lets languish in limbo.
I'm also not trying to imply that Graeme was mean-spirited in singling out certain statements made by Isabella. As Graeme
confessed
in the comments thread: "I have a soft spot for Tony
Isabella's stuff, actually..." It's just that I don't want the
bigger issues Isabella raises to get lost in a sea of snark. As
Isabella says in an exchange toward the end of his interview:
MN: There doesn’t seem to be a lot of media
coverage on your reaction to events in GA? Why do you think this story
isn’t receiving more press?
TI: That’s a question better asked of those who could be
covering this story and aren’t. I think the story isn’t what Tony
Isabella has to say but the issues I’d like to raise: the lack of
super-heroes of color, the minor roles given to existing super-heroes
of color, the demeaning of a pioneer African-American character, the
comics industry’s poor record of fair treatment for creators, and even
the plight of older creators in today’s industry. All of these issues
are far more newsworthy than the rants of that bitter old bastard
Isabella. On the other hand, in the right light, I do make for an
adorable poster child.
MN: You mention you may attempt to address DC's overall
treatment of African-American heroes through the media. Given the lack
of press thus far is this something you still plan to pursue? If so,
how?
TI: Yes. However, on reflection, because of my personal
involvement, I don’t believe I’m the right person to address this
issue. It’s too important an issue for me to risk it being dismissed as
just another Isabella rant. So, instead, I plan to encourage others to
discuss and speak out on this issue and not merely as it applies to DC
Comics. None of the mainstream publishers should get a pass on this one.
This reminded me of reading
Marc
Mason's account of his experiences at this year's San Diego con.
Marc witnessed young children searching for toys of African-American
heroes; girls looking for action figures other than "Marvel's semi-porn
Black Cat and Elektra figures"; and a ten-year old Latino kid wanting
"a superhero toy that look[ed] like him" but instead settling for a
Spawn toy. The underrepresentation of minorities in comics makes
me think of the increasing popularity of manga in many ways:
Mainstream comics appear to ignore the desires of potential audiences,
such as more stories aimed at children; more formats that deliver more
value for the money; and more diverse characters. If publishers
keep ignoring their audiences, is it any surprise when those audiences
ignore mainstream comics in return?
