Writing for Comics - Harder or Easier for success than Novels or Screen writing?

Personally I think novels is easiest - it's the only one that doesn't require anyone else's help to get a finished product. It also depends on your talents though, some people are just more inclined toward one form or another. Which do you consume most, novel, movies, or comics?

comics are pretty tricky-- the comic industry is based around REALLY speedy turnarounds, and the writers out there often times will have 2, 3, even 4 titles that they juggle each month. Editors just may not have time to shift through straight submissions and would probably only look for people with published work (maybe not novels, but something like deadline based work). It's almost more like a newspaper than a moviescript, in terms of how the editors treat things in the marvel/DC/image offices.

Add that to the fact that the industry is just now coming out of a 10 year slump, and during that slump a lot of the writers rose up out of the small press/indie world, or were artist/writer combos already..and you have a tough shell to crack. Not to sound discouraging, but theres very little room in there for the random submission...particularly if you want to create a new IP.

It's not impossible...thats what the sub-houses like Vertigo are for. but its going to be the kind of thing that is easier 'if you know someone', or if you do it yourself and then try-to-sell it.

I 'would' recommend going for the smaller companies first , but the danger of that is that the smaller press you go, the more you'll find the comics driven by writers who also draw...in fact, most smaller houses wont even look at material unless its presented to them in a finished drawn format.

If you've got a good comic idea though, try scripting and drawing it yourself! There's a HUGE indie comics subculture you can dive into of people doing similar stuff, and occasionally one of those will break to the surface (SCUD and BONE being two examples). UNLIKE NOVELS,in the comics industry self publishing is VERY respected, and there have been too many success stories to count.

Being both a novelist and comics writer, I can state without fear of refutation that it's far and away easier to sell a novel to a publisher than it is to sell scripts to the major comics publishers.

Comics publishing is a very small field...it's not really an industry in of itself.

At this point, it's slowly, painfully expanding from the implosion of the early 1990s, but it'll never recover to pre-1993 levels. The infrastructure wasn't there then to offset the devastating effects of the crash and there's less of one now.

Marvel and DC still pretty much operate on a system of nepotism...who you know rather than what you know. But that's been their practice for decades.

DC recently became fixated on novelists they consider to have "marquee value", assigning them comics projects in the hopes of attracting readers from other mediums and categories.

Keep one all-important thing in mind when submitting to Marvel and DC--they flat-out aren't interested in anything they don't own. They won't give an original concept that isn't somehow tied-in to their "universes" a first glance, much less a second.

Also keep in mind, that neither Marvel or DC actually make any substantial money from publishing comics. It's all in the licensing. DC's titles have been losing money for years and years, and they publish comics as loss-leaders for licensing deals.

Self-publishing in comics isn't particularly respected unless there's a breakout concept, like the aforementioned Bone, Scud, or Cereberus.

And even then...

The majority of the smaller companies, with the exception of Dark Horse and the occasional exception of Image, pay only a backend royalty deal...there's no money upfront.

As it is, most of the smaller companies are only banners under which creators self-publish their own material.

So, anyhow...unless you can draw or know someone who can draw and know how to actually produce a publication, it's probably best to stick with prose for the time being.

And you can always consider going the graphic novel route.

yeah, axler put it well..the only thing I'd counter is the self-publishing thing--not to argue with his experience, but I've seen a different sort of situation over the last decade.

in the last ten years there's been a surge of indie/selfpublished books that find their way on to the normal shop shelves. back in the "Image" days you would have never have seen a Joe Chiapetta or Kochalka book anywhere. but now...heck, even books that are 'photocopy printed' can gain a following, as Matt Feazel proves.

The smaller comic shops may not carry all that stuff, but a lot of shops will carry at least SOMETHING--a shelf, or half a shelf...heck, you can find 'Top Shelf' stuff in BORDERS these days, and only a few years ago they were an obscure indie publisher no one knew. OR, to offer another counter point, once Larry Marder took over Image, he began pulling up all the self published titles and releasing them through the Image name. The industry was in a slump, but hell, IMAGE was released Strangers in Paradise, Bone, Age of Bronze, etc. It was a good time to be a reader. Bad time to be a publisher though. Marder himself came from the indie scene with one of the Granddaddy books: Beanworld.

but, a note on that--a lot of those are probably along the more graphic novel route axler mentioned, not the issue/mag route. Trades and Graphic novels are the things people buy these days. also, few of those indie/self publishing things make money. they're hobbies of love, most of them. Unless you're craig thompson. or kochalka. Or eastman and laird i guess, back in the old days. That's probably the single biggest success story.


anyway I'm not trying to start an argument or anything, I just get a bit defensive--I spent some time dabbling in self publishing for comics, and it's a very rewarding community. But you won't find much glory or fame there,if that's what you're looking for. for comic self publishing, success is a more extrinsic term.

If you're looking to express yourself and don't care much about a return on your investment of time, exertion and money...yeah, self-publishing your work is the way to go.

I self published Death Hawk: The Soulworm Saga as a graphic novel (and I plan on doing more in the future), but I'm definitely interested in some sort of return other than self-satisfaction.

As a commercial creator who has has made his living at this for a good few years now, fame and glory are far less important to me than the quan.

Short answer:

It's do-able, but unless you do the whole shebang, you are likely lookin at writing someone else's characters/stories.

This isn't as bad as it might seem at first. Because if you can impress a publisher and they get your book out there you are in the outer-loop of the industry.

As an industry, it's all about who you know. Not just he big two, I'm talking industry-wide. You get one gig and you have something to show, and in showing, you'll meet others and you start a six-degrees chain rolling.

It is also ALL about the art. Make no mistake, if you are trying to break in, you MUST have art. Not just good art, GREAT art. (Impotant note - that doesn't mean you have art like Neil Adams or (insert you fave here) but it has to stand out on a page/shelf.) Breaking in it's unlikely anyone will read your script, but they will read your comic, especially if the art rocks.

Come for the art, stay for the writing.

If you are dead-set on doing your own characters/stories, find an art team and get the book done, THEN look for a publisher. But make sure you are not gonna flake out on the artist AND it is difficult finding a good artist who hasn't been approached many times by writers with great ideas who just piss them off by being unprofessional. The flip-side is that you will also find many unprofessional artists who want to be comic artists until they sit down to do it. Pin-Ups are easy - sequentials are not.

And don't worry about slumps or booms in the industry. If you are good, you will make it. Publishers might well be reluctant to risk money on an unknown, but they also want to discover the next hot talent.

It is hard. VERY hard, to break in, and partly because if you JUST write, so much is out of your control. But it is do-able. You just might have to go about it in a less than direct route.

Discussing WM's points on art:

Sounds believable, that you must have great art that stands out on the shelf in order to edge your project through whatever crack opens in the industry. However, I often wonder what passes for great art in comics -- to most eyes, that is, especially those of top publishers.

From discussion boards like this one I know that it's fairly common to love Mike Mignola's art. Safe to say that this example is not too much of a cult niche. Even though some other artist pitches in on the current Hellboy mags, I wouldn't have been able to tell since they seem to stick with the Mignola style, the official Hellboy look and feel. It's a chewy balance of thick lines and dark shadows -- always well suited to the spooky subject matter -- and just enough fine lines in the right places to establish rich, full settings but not inconsistently reaching for the "realistic." By that I'm referring to how some comics are so lavish with the art on the literal/detail track that they distance you from your immersion in a comix world. The Mignola approach is conservative enough with detail to present its own eye, its own style, but more importantly to show off the story and characters through its dim colors and (often unassuming) choices of focus in the art that help you look beyond the rendering itself.

A person judging the art independently of the story and character feel, and who might value more of a blow-my-socks-off approach to it, might rate the Hellboy art a few notches below some of these other comics projects that look like they're trying to make it into the Vatican art collection on every page. When I read comix throughout my childhood (mostly the 70s) I never dreamed characters like Superman or Iron Man would be made to look photographic in a regular comic book. I'm very impressed with the detail and work poured into those examples, but I find it hard to warm up to them.

In reading Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics recently, I was happy to discover some explanation for this that makes sense, based on psychological reasons and how art has worked on our imagination throughout history. I won't get into that now, but I wonder if I'm in the minority in favoring a tighter marriage of art and story, even if art "greatness" must fit a subtle definition to maximize that story. That makes the writer as important as the artist, and in the case of creators with both hats, the sense of the writing as important as the art and making each overlap the other in their roles.

I'd rather believe most successful publishers have taste exceeding mine with which they spot the winners. However, the two biggest of these are the ones that most often dilute the character of their stories with assembly-line creative processes resulting in the glossy stuff that looks fantastic but somehow doesn't make a fan of me. So, despite a few stylish exceptions, I still wonder. Not that I mistake the Big Two for being points of entry into the industry, anyway.

AzBobby said:

Discussing WM's points on art:

Sounds believable, that you must have great art that stands out on the shelf in order to edge your project through whatever crack opens in the industry. However, I often wonder what passes for great art in comics -- to most eyes, that is, especially those of top publishers.

Click to expand...

It's always gonna be somewhat subjective.

AzBobby said:

From discussion boards like this one I know that it's fairly common to love Mike Mignola's art. Safe to say that this example is not too much of a cult niche. Even though some other artist pitches in on the current Hellboy mags, I wouldn't have been able to tell since they seem to stick with the Mignola style, the official Hellboy look and feel. It's a chewy balance of thick lines and dark shadows -- always well suited to the spooky subject matter -- and just enough fine lines in the right places to establish rich, full settings but not inconsistently reaching for the "realistic." By that I'm referring to how some comics are so lavish with the art on the literal/detail track that they distance you from your immersion in a comix world. The Mignola approach is conservative enough with detail to present its own eye, its own style, but more importantly to show off the story and characters through its dim colors and (often unassuming) choices of focus in the art that help you look beyond the rendering itself.

Click to expand...

Well, I think, to take Mignola as an example, his style evolved. Look at what Frank Miller does now, and then look at his early stuff, which is very much in the convention of the times. Styles evolve and the breakout artists can do the old-school style as well.

AzBobby said:

In reading Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics recently, I was happy to discover some explanation for this that makes sense, based on psychological reasons and how art has worked on our imagination throughout history. I won't get into that now, but I wonder if I'm in the minority in favoring a tighter marriage of art and story, even if art "greatness" must fit a subtle definition to maximize that story. That makes the writer as important as the artist, and in the case of creators with both hats, the sense of the writing as important as the art and making each overlap the other in their roles.

Click to expand...

OK, with respect to what I said, I think ultimately a comic succeeds or fails based on the writing (hey, no pressure though). What I said before, "come for the art, stay for the writing" holds true.

But with a few exceptions, unless it's on your comic pull list with the guy at the comicbook shop, you will mull the covers on the shelf and only pick up the ones that are visually interesting. It might have a clever title, but it's the art that will hook you. It's why they employ cover artists. It;s also why some comics come in sealed bags, because the inside artist isn't close to being the same standard as the cover artist.

But the rules that apply to the big two, or even the bigger indies, don't apply if you are tring to break in. EVERYTHING has to zing.

I was also told by a friend who is higher up the food chain than myself, that some publishers will hire less talented people who can meet deadline and deliver good work, rather than great talent who miss deadlines. (Which is why you sometimes see comics that aren't what they could/should be.)

There really is no ONE trick. You have to hit EVERY mark and do it really, really well. And you have to maintain that.

Once you are in (and they closed the door VERY tightly behind you) you can breathe easier. But even then, like most entertainment things, setting aside the "old boys club" vibe comics has, if you fail to deliver, and fail consitently, you are gone.

wordmonkey said:

But even then, like most entertainment things, setting aside the "old boys club" vibe comics has, if you fail to deliver, and fail consitently, you are gone.

Click to expand...

Or, which happened to a whole hell of a lot of people in the 1990s who did deliver consistently, the field suffers yet another slump/crash/implosion/adjustment and you're gone.

Or, if you're working for one of the Big Two, you end up on the losing side of an editorial turf war and you're gone.

Just my two cents, but I'd say (and this comes from reading around) it's probably hardest to sell a screenplay (imagine the huge $$$ you're asking someone to invest in you, the crew/cast/equipment expenses ... it's murder & miracles if it gets made) ...

Next, imagine the difficulty of selling a comix sctipt WITHOUT having Art attached ... because others nailed it for you above: ART is the thing that sells the comix. Consider the small market you're selling to; you think there are lotsa titles? But it's a tiny market of people who'll publish and distribute something they cannot even visualize WITHOUT seeing the Art!.

The issue is, the more people and $$$ needed the greater the inertia to get the ball rolling.

Movies need an ARMY to become involved, a rich Army. Or all you got is words-on-paper.

Comix need Artists and marketing, or all you got is words-on-paper.

Writing NOVELS though? You need nobody but ... you. You and a dull pencil and a hill of blank paper ... and the visions in your head that could be a movie or a comix or ... a novel!

Prose is the ultimate no-$$$-investment, just your talent getting it rolling. And the world is FULL of people hungry to publish a book! (But even then it's feast-or-famine)

I'd say: start with short fiction, get some buzz going, start writing novels ... and join the fray! If the novels sell well ... the movie deals and comix adaptations will knock on your door.

OK, I have actualy dabbled in all three of the stated examples below, so I have a slight insight into them all.

small axe said:

Just my two cents, but I'd say (and this comes from reading around) it's probably hardest to sell a screenplay (imagine the huge $$$ you're asking someone to invest in you, the crew/cast/equipment expenses ... it's murder & miracles if it gets made) ...

Click to expand...

Well, depends what you're talking about. There are lots of people looking to get in movies. It's a sexy investment even WITH the risks. So selling a movie script isn't always as hard as you might think. Getting that movie made is where it gets difficult. And that's where the money starts to really burn.

small axe said:

Next, imagine the difficulty of selling a comix sctipt WITHOUT having Art attached ... because others nailed it for you above: ART is the thing that sells the comix. Consider the small market you're selling to; you think there are lotsa titles? But it's a tiny market of people who'll publish and distribute something they cannot even visualize WITHOUT seeing the Art!.

Click to expand...

Again, this is not as difficult as you might think. Once you are in the loop, as a writer you CAN pitch a project and you can sell that idea. WITHOUT an art team. BUT, if you are breaking in, you NEED the art as well. Editors can read a script and visualize it. They wouldn't be doing the job if they couldn't. They simply don't have time to trawl through a slush-pile. And because the industry is so much smaller, they can't afford to hire readers in the same way that movie producers and agents can and do.

small axe said:

The issue is, the more people and $$$ needed the greater the inertia to get the ball rolling.

Click to expand...

This is true. I can write a script (just costs my time and the cost of printing a copy and electric to run the computer) I can get an talented artist who is trying to break in to do the art on a percentage of the back-end, same with an inker, colorist and letterer. I can then pitch a finished book to an indie publisher who ONLY needs to cover printing and some marketing (which in reality Diamond will do the heavy lifting on to the book stores). I'm not gonna make a lot of money, but I will have a bok out there and real published credit.

I cannot get a director, actors, lighting, sound, catering, transport, sets (even if I use existing places there are costs involved), editing, prints made, marketing and distribution with everyone taking a back-end pay.

BUT, I can sell the option on a movie script and leave the making of to someone else. Not only wouldn't I sell the option on a comic, to break-in, I would need to do a chunk of the "producers" work either.

small axe said:

Movies need an ARMY to become involved, a rich Army. Or all you got is words-on-paper.

Click to expand...

Yes, but that's not your problem. You just sell the script. The movie making is not your problem.

small axe said:

Comix need Artists and marketing, or all you got is words-on-paper.

Click to expand...

See I would say this is why it is a litle hard, because to break in YOU need to find the people to make it more than words-on-paper.

small axe said:

Writing NOVELS though? You need nobody but ... you. You and a dull pencil and a hill of blank paper ... and the visions in your head that could be a movie or a comix or ... a novel!

Prose is the ultimate no-$$$-investment, just your talent getting it rolling. And the world is FULL of people hungry to publish a book! (But even then it's feast-or-famine)

Click to expand...

Actually no. You can do it all yourself for the same costs as above, but if the book is published it needs a lot behind it to succeed.

small axe said:

I'd say: start with short fiction, get some buzz going, start writing novels ... and join the fray! If the novels sell well ... the movie deals and comix adaptations will knock on your door.

Click to expand...

There is a world of difference between the way you write those different things. And I have seen it said many times that the worst person, in most cases, to adapt a novel is the author.

The reason comics are hard to crack is because there is an "old boys club" vibe. I have heard it said LOTS of times, that you should never ask anyone how they broke in, because the industry immediately closed off that way in. It's hard to break into comics because the industry makes it hard.