Elements of the Subconscious Mind Pt. 5 - Lady Gaga Substance In The Ephemeral/Fallacy In Seeking The Optimal

I thought this chapter was simple and obvious as I made my outline, but when

I came to expand this chapter it was like taking a tiger by the tail. It seems a simple proposition; compare the ephemeral with the optimal. Can work done quickly and on a deadline on products sold for small but ready money, compare to careful design work and highest standards of production quality for a high priced object. What can be understood in contrasting these two propositions?

[[[*As I began making outlines and drawing equations to plan my expansion of this thought I was soon shocked at its apparent complexity. Contrasting the aspects of art and design, cost and profits, employment and production, value and disposability devolved into untamed chaos. The ‘working bar’ in my brain froze. I could make no progress in my perception of the problem, and nothing could move forward.  At the library I got books about complexity and chaos theory, but really they pointed away from the direction my instincts told me the answer lays. It is not a mystery that can only be perceived through mathematical precision. What I lacked was a vehicle to drive my perception into my reader’s understanding.

So I worked half-heartedly at later chapters, other projects, took walks and naps, etc., always coming back to the problem. As weeks turned to months my brain was working, working,  working. Late one night I was looking at a recently comic book message board I had regularly read; I found a long new thread about a recent interview given by Comic book writer impresario Alan Moore. As is common on such occasions many persons posted their (mostly negative) opinions of Moore’s reclusive nature and also numerous posts I perceived as mischaracterizations of Moore’s remarks. There were many of these posts and I began answering them one by one, perhaps careless in not reading them all through and making one cogent post addressing them all. However the result of my focusing on one point after another was to reply incompletely or with some antagonism to each members post, and they in turn responded to my isolated answer to their own post without regard to the string of my posts made in response to others. After a couple of hours I realized my manic state. I took a fourfold dose of my antipsychotic before retiring. A window of perception opened in my dreamstate in the days that followed; I had the analogy that I had sought for so long. Ironically she was staring me in the face in the graphic I chose to illustrate this chapter many months ago (see above).]]]

The Thing That Made Us So Happy, Came To Make Us Cry

Reading comic books in my youth was a hit or miss proposition. Comic books were a sideline wherever they were sold. A rack or two at newsstands, candy stores, bus and train stations etc. The distributor dropped off new bundles each week, and picked up the unsold issues that had gone past their date. Here today, gone tomorrow. Comic books were a side line wherever they were sold. A rack or two at newsstands, candy stores, bus and train stations. All places that loads of people walked by every day, and impulse purchases made new readers on a regular basis; the pulse of the industry. Getting each issue of any title was no small feat, and those of us who cared had to work hard, sweet talk the clerks, be there on the magic day and at the right time, without making the fatal mistake of getting underfoot. The thing about back issues was that they were hardly ever to be found. Ask at the stores what happens to the old comics and receive only shrugs and blank stares. Coverless copies of older issues turned up in drugstores bagged up three for 15 cents. Your friends had their own stashes, and maybe an older brother’s treasures, but trading was often a grueling ordeal: and it was often hard to know if you came out on top or not.

A chain of events began to happen in the 1960s. Kids like me were not content to go issue to issue in our consumption of our comic books. We hungered for the back issues we had missed or that had come out before our time. Reprint titles began to come out regularly from Marvel and DC, wetting our appetites for the mythos created by those two universes. Fueled by Stan the Man’s footnotes referring us back to past issues we longed to possess. Certainly this was a sales gimmick to Stan Lee, who was a veteran of two decades of ephemeral storytelling. Keep the action moving, make it exciting and leave them wanting more. The success of Stan’s formula and the talents of Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, Don Heck and the rest; left to concoct their stories with relative freedom, was taken to a newer, more satisfying level. With the advent of young talent who loved the medium and who had ideas of elevating it to more satisfying adult levels, and that would kick off a chain of changes.

Beginning with Roy Thomas, the Marvel phenomenon slowly began to evolve from iconic heroes in simple yet manic adventures to more considered storytelling, with ever more careful continuity that readers were quick and loud to demand to be upheld. This was indeed a heady time to be reading comic books. Although a steady stream of reprints were and are still published to the present day, there was still a great hunger to own the original printings of these great old comic books. Many used book stores everywhere resold the volume of issues many still read and discarded for whatever reasons. Used comics were commonly bought at such stores for a penny or two and resold for a nickel, largely regardless of condition or content. The combination of constructing more complex and interesting comic book stories and the rise of dedicated comic book stores came to trigger the law of unintended consequences; and the nature of comic book storytelling and comic book distribution changed forever over the decade of the 1970s. In the process these lead to shattering changes in creator psychology and their employment.

Aside from some eclectic news sellers who maintained a stock of back issues, proper comic book shops only began to pop up in the early 1970s. As prices and grading began to evolve, there came to be a basis for earning substantial profits from selling back issues that could pay the bills and make profits that then could not be practically earned selling only new comics. Cover prices were slowly climbing, but were still only 20 cents, and reached only a dollar by the end of the decade. Shop owners would make large orders with their local distributor, but because these accepted returns the retailer could only realize a few cents off of each comic book sold. The creation of the direct market for sales to comic shops on a nonreturnable basis, but for a large increase in profit per unit sold was a boon to comic book retailers, and locations proliferated throughout the next 15 years or so. There were dozens of direct distributors across the country by 1974, and typically comic book shops would buy from several as well as their local newsstand distributor. Retailers would commonly take books at newsstand terms and then also order the same books from direct market distributors in optimistic numbers months before. Alas nearly universally retailers over ordered expensive nonreturnable comics to a ruinous degree, and predictably began to slip them into their returns to the newsstand distributors. Of course these locals, working on a margin of pennies per unit soon realized that the comic shops were returning more comic books than they had delivered. The results of this practice may be seen by the appearance of color markings on the bottom edge of nearly all Bronze Age comic books beginning roughly in early 1974. These are from distributors marking their product with magic markers, striking colored line codes across comic books by the box and bundle. Publishers recognized this issue and wanted to maintain both of their streams of distribution, the broad based newsstand and more profitable direct to comic shops.  They began experimenting with different markings, logos, covers, even different prices on the same comic book issue. It was many years before UPC codes settled the issue, but by that time newsstand distribution was in serious decline.

Waves of collector speculation were common enough since the early 1960s, but it became a more problematic issue when cash sales came to become more in the nature of advanced orders of increasingly big numbers of copies of multiple titles from sometimes very large numbers of individual customers. Even as they ordered comic books sight unseen and months before they were published, and with the best intentions of buying these gems and reselling them at a good profit, as the cycle repeated week after week they soon had a large volume of comics that cost perhaps more than they had planned to spend when they set out to be speculators. Very often collector/speculators ordered more comic books than they came to pay for, and every comic shop had many unsold books that they were no less required to pay for, and right away if they wanted to receive the next week’s books.

Of course this is only a simplified illustration of distribution/retailer issues of that time. The costs of everything from paper, press time, payroll, fuel and other inflationary trends pushed the price of comic book issues ever upward. This was seen as advantageous to comic book retail shops, in that it increased per unit profit, which was generally a stable and reliable number. However the increased cover prices were problematic for newsstand retailers; the price was higher, but that generally reduced the impulse sales that made comic books profitable, and shrinking profits squeezed comic books out of thousands of valuable point of purchase newsstand locations each year. Local newsstand distribution of comic books as it had existed for nearly forty years was essentially finished by the early 1980s. Although remnants still exist to this day, they are only narrow deals for limited distribution of certain publishers and titles. The full line of any publisher can only really be purchased if pre-ordered at a local comic shop (lcs) or online retailer.

The key to prosperity for the comic book industry has always been tied to the number of readers. It was the strength of many tens of thousands of point of sale locations in places that people of all ages and interests saw on a regular basis that sparked new interests in the heroes and reading their adventures. All else flowed from this. As it has become necessary to enter a dedicated comic book shop to even discover comic books for nearly two decades, generations have grown up knowing only other media representations of comic book character mythos from tv, film, games etc. While these do bring new readers to the market, the nature and broad variety of comic books published makes it difficult and expensive to immerse one’s self in comic books, which is the main avenue of their steady interest.

Even this contraction in the marketplace is not the worst thing that has happened to the industry. There has always existed an inequity in the artistic creation of content published in comic books. From the start a typical writer or artist who became established and could get a steady volume of work could earn a good living by great effort and hard labor. Commonly an artist might work 60-80 hours per week, or even more. Earning enough to raise a family, reach middle class prosperity and perhaps some of the finer things in life. Many thought it was a privilege to earn a living by their artistic talents, and even though they retained no rights to their work, had no health care or retirement benefits these were not really an issue to most creators up until the 1960s. Until then comic books were a treadmill of production, publication, purchase, and discard, then repeat. Aside for an occasional filler issue now and then reprint rights were a small issue. Aside from some of DCs iconic heroes there was little conversation about rights and ownership, the industry standard called ‘work made for hire’ was pretty clearly accepted as creators cashed their paychecks.

However, as the 1960s comic book boom progressed publishers found they could repackage and reprint whole lines of stories very profitably, having paid for the material years ago. Then ancillary products including fan club memorabilia, posters, puzzles, big little books and an explosion of toys, dolls, trading cards, clothing, food products like candy, cereals, snacks, articles in mass market magazines and pro sports programs, paperback reprints and novelizations; almost anything imaginable publishers were profiting from, but aside from a small check for doing the graphics that were the whole attraction, the creators were out of the loop. Most seasoned artists and writers drew back from ‘creating’ new characters for the big companies for fear that their work would turn into a huge money maker for their employers.

Indeed, apart from Jack Kirby, one can hardy point to an iconic hero created for Marvel or DC Comics after 1970, just a lot of rehashed second stringers. So in lieu of originality scripts became more ‘relevant’ and ‘adult.’  The fun and goofy one and done stories we loved so much became less profitable as the lcs frequenting fans grew long in the tooth and the influx of new readers diminished month to month. It is helpful to recognize that for the most part the industry was still focused on the business of printed comic books. By 1985 creators had won some limited rights, the return of artwork, residual payments on issues with sales above a certain level and reprint rights and even some level of ownership in the case of popular and savvy negotiator. Although Warner Communications was the corporate owner of DC Comics and all its properties and characters at that time DC was left largely autonomous.

 Multi-part stories and crossover ‘events’ began to dominate the comic book landscape, and ‘concepts’ became the new currency. Instead of creating new iconic heroes to sell more issues editors choose to very loudly kill their old ones. They realized that no one blinked when Dick Grayson moved on and Jason Todd became Robin, so from then on an iconic character can be ‘killed,’ that is separated from its comic book continuity, and replaced in another ‘great’ event story down the line, with no loss of a costume to sell in some future movie, toy or game.

DC Comics purchased a group of crappy characters published by Charlton Comics in the 1960s and 1970s second and third rate comic books heroes by anyone’s standards. Still they were in hand, and in the climate of the day they had the virtue seeming new to many readers. As it happened, comic book impresario Alan Moore made an unsolicited proposal to DC Editor Dick Giordano involving the reimagining of an existing comic book universe and its heroes. In 1985 there were a number of such properties floating around, and Moore felt that his brave new world epic would resonate with readers if the shocking events he planned happed to familiar characters. The idea of Alan Moore launching the return of the Charlton heroes definitely was appealing as a circulation builder, and it is real evidence that at least DC editors were thinking in terms of print comic books and continuity when they demurred in letting Moore radically change and/or kill their valuable new heroes. In light of the trends that became popular only a few years later this was perhaps a poor decision, but it indicates that the company was still thinking in terms of maintaining continuity and selling periodicals. It became momentous in light of subsequent events. Giordano suggested Moore move forward with the project using original heroes created for the project. A problematic offer, both because Moore felt the story would have less impact with new, untested heroes; and the natural reluctance to create new properties he would not own and control.

Many comic book readers do not appreciate the raw effort and hard labor that is required to write and draw the best comic book stories. It is demanding toil that too many relieve with formula, shortcuts and a good enough mentality that readers can see clearly, groan and complain loudly about; but still continue to buy over and over again. Alan Moore is not completely above these faults himself at all times. Still he has proven himself capable of superior work on a regular basis, and it seems he regards this recognition as a return for his labor equivalent to the paycheck he received, at least in hindsight. It may be folly for any creator to expect to receive much beyond financial compensation for the use of their work in comic books up until this point. I believe Alan Moore understood that there was something at stake for DC Comics at this time, and this was the reason DC was willing to promise that the rights to their creation would revert to Moore and Gibbons after the project was published and collected, and then allowed to go out of print for a year, as was completely the norm in the industry at that time.

Watchmen, the 12 issue series would be a self-contained story exploring what it would be like if superheroes really exist and had since the 1940s war years. It had a beginning,  a middle and a conclusion; and Moore believed he had a contract that assured him the story and characters Moore and Gibbons’ created could not be changed or added to without the participation or permission of the creators. I can only speculate on Alan Moore’s motives, but it seems that he was more concerned about the deal he thought he was making in terms of future control of the property, and indeed it’s eventual return to him and Gibbons the whole ownership of Watchmen; than about the comic book he would create. Surely the pair commanded top rates on the project and they labored to produce their best work to date, but it must be recognized that Watchmen’s publication by DC Comics and the creators support by employment and compensation while creating the book, and corporate promotion and distribution of the comic book series and Warner’s clout in publishing, promoting and distributing the trade far exceeded Moore’s possible creation of and publication of the Watchman concept independently or by another publisher. I believe Alan Moore was shrewd in casting a deal whereby he would create a comic book and a group of new heroes that DC Comics would publish, thereby promoting and adding considerable value too, that would in a few short years contractually return to his own ownership. Little did Moore and Gibbons realize that they were creating the book that would be acclaimed as the best comic book ever published! Watchmen sold and sold more copies every year for the next 25 years, the bestselling graphic novel ever, and selling broadly to non lcs customers who really don’t read comic books. Although DC Comics editors and publisher anticipated a significant success in Watchmen, I do not think they could foresee the turns its publication as a collected work would take, and the direction it would lead the entire industry. Watchman’s influence and huge continuing financial return finally awoke the Dragon. After earning such riches from Moore’s creation it could only grasp for more. Before this time creation held a direct benefit for the creator in terms of continued sales of a modest product, comic books, in a volatile and uncertain market. The Dragon of corporate ownership see selling mere object periodicals as unprofitable except to breed iconic characters, heroes and mythos to be harvested and exploited in other mediums for undreamed of profits.

This consideration of the ephemeral and the optimal began as, in my mind, to be illustrated with Apple Computers in contrast to other technological alternatives. With the untimely death of Steve Jobs I felt I had to choose a new analogy for my thought to be read without being branded iconoclastic by much of the audience most likely to be receptive of my writing. I want to preface these concluding remarks by stating my respect for Steve Jobs personally and for his skill and talent. However I have always rather disliked his vision of design dominance and creation and marketing iculture. Only a fool perhaps would be annoyed with product after product that innovate so thoroughly and are demonstrably so popular and useful to so many people. Clearly the iphone, the ipad and itunes arguably place more useful functionality into Apple customer’s hands than any products in history, but I really do fail to see how this will play out positively for ipeople.

It is certainly commonly seen as a great equalizer in society to have a universal technology that serves its owner with endless streams of data of all description constantly at her beck and call. Jumping into this technology must seem imperative to every young person in the world. The most disturbing aspect of iculture is the extent to which persons become driven by the objects they have purchased. Their mobile devices broadcast their every move and thought so that all their waking life is reduced to a marketing opportunity. The music you buy, your searches on line for information, books, fashions and vacation spots bake cookies that marketers are munching along the path to earning a fortune mining data from you and your friends. Reading Privacy Policies carefully reveals that the policy is you have no privacy; click: accept. Apple’s iterms that you must accept allow them to own your online existence with built in spyware that can even be hacked by anyone hot to give it a try. In the past such assertions would seem paranoid surely, but now it is plainly the truth, but still this is not what bothers me.

I see Apple iculture as a promise of individually by way of strict conformity. I can see many positive aspects to the technology and searching for new ways to fit its functionality into our lives; but I see the optimal design paradigm as inefficient although profitable for the richest corporation on Earth. I can’t help thinking that perhaps somewhat crude in comparison, but more specifically functional devices could be devised for persons who choose to decide their own technological requirements. Devices of this nature could conceivably even be manufactured domestically by people here who need a good job. God forbid the government should ‘subsidize’ an industry here that has been written off as impossible to bring back to our shores. How could our national pride stand that we manufacture cheap functional goods that can undersell the top designed quality products made in China?

It is nearly 33 years since Lowell George's amazing life winked out far from home and for some bad decisions. He was a wonderful artist who touched my young life deeply, and I mourn him still.