From: dvandom@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (David VanDomelen)
Subject: Re: Wild C.A.T.S. = X-Men? NOT!<--YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! : )
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 02:13:40 GMT

Scott, I'm going to start from the assumption that your post was more than an 
extended flame-bait, an assumption that may not be warranted.
     Personally, I think that Lobdell's X-Men is an improvement over some of 
the recent stuff.  His scripting is in the same league/style with PAD, and more
than makes up for any deficiencies his plotting may have.  As for the art, I 
think Raney is at least as good as Lee, as is Thibert.  True, Rurik's 
breakdowns/pencils are a bit cartoony (after all, he started on What The as 
well), but not so much so that it detracts from the overall quality.  As far as
I can tell, for every artist fleeing Marvel to Image, a new artist of equal or 
greater talent shows up at the door, portfolio in hand, saying "Hi, I 
understand you have an opening."  Especially with Liefeld inspiring a new 
generation of college-age students who wouldn't have otherwise thought they 
could make a living in comics.  Raney, Capullo, Quesada and others are doing an
admirable job, and soon will be as exploitable as the Image pack.
     As far as taking all of Marvel's best pencilers, I disagree more than just
as mentioned above...I don't think all the Image crew are "best".  Valentino, 
for example, is quite talented, but the style he uses in Shadowhawk just plain 
bites.  At least he can write (based on previous experience, I haven't read 
Shadowhawk, just paged thru it), unlike alot of other Image artists.
     Another point is that DC has little to worry about from Image.  It hasn't 
used the "star system" for artists as heavily as Marvel, being better known for
its writers.  I mean, try to name a "hot new DC artist"...it won't be nearly as
easy as naming a "hot new Marvel artist".
     Marvel and DC do have one major advantage over Image beside money and 
distributors...an established continuity.  No matter how snarled it may get on 
individual titles, a new story can simply plug into the canonical background 
and have that wealth of detail available.  Image is trying to build that detail
from scratch, and from the postings I'm seeing here, I'd say that they are 
trying to get too complex too fast.  If a universe hopes to last, it has to 
build its continuity up slowly and comprehensibly...start at chapter one, not 
chapter 8, or you'll end up in Chapter 11.  True, you can't tell much story in 
an introduction, but you can tell a better one if you aren't trying to set up 
all the book's background in that one chapter.  In a well written story, 
information comes out slowly and naturally, perhaps foreshadowed a few chapters
in advance...not all dropped on the reader in one lump at the beginning.  Since
Marvel and DC don't have to explain the whole world in any given new title, 
they can devote more space to writing a good story, and to giving information 
on the specific characters.  Wild CATS didn't just have to intro 8 characters 
in 32 pages, they had to intro a good chunk of the world as well.  Perhaps 
Image would have been better suited to publish a handbook with all the 
background in it (maybe a 32-page text heavy comic), and make sure the 
'writers' stuck to that info.  I know that's what DC tried to do with Impact, 
but that attempt failed because A: it was too expensive, and B: it was ignored 
in less than 5 months (what happened to the Wolf, or the Black Witch?).  If the
core group of original Image artists had gotten together and designed the 
universe, then published the outline of it, they could have spent more time in 
the individual issues trying to grow into the job of telling a story, instead 
of simply performing core-dumps with nice art.
     Finally, I'd like to address the post about modern techniques being so 
much better than those of even 5 years ago, let alone 30.  I grew up with a 
father who was a music teacher, so I often got to hear things like "Oh, he was 
a good technical musician, but that won't get him far."  Mastery of technique 
is helpful, but necessary to a true artist.  Tools do not an artist make.  If 
you don't have that certain something, your art will never look quite right no 
matter how outstanding your technique.  Innovative artists shine through even 
when scribbling with a dull pencil on a cocktail napkin.  Wooden artists stay 
wooden even with $30000 of inking equipment and computers.  They may look good 
on the surface, but the surface is all they have.  An artist with depth can 
always be helped out by the addition of some gimcrack, but a shallow artist is 
nothing without his toys.  True talent endures the ages, while good technique 
is lucky to get a footnote after a generation.  It's true of music, it's true 
of comics, it's true of any art form.
     Give a high school band teacher the reins of the Boston Pops and he could 
make beautiful music...give Mozart a penny whistle and he could make music more
beautiful still.
     Dave Van Domelen, my art improved dramatically when I switched from 
felt-tip to technical pen, but whose wouldn't?
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics