Anonymous asked:

jordandwhiteqna:

You ever hear “never judge a book by its cover”? :P



This is not okay. This is not professional. This is not how comics work.

I don’t know how Mr. White was involved with the comic book in question, Spider-Man #9 (2016; see above image), or if he was at all. As far as I can tell, Anonymous misdirected his/her question toward a Marvel creator who wasn’t involved in the book, judging by the issue’s credits.

Regardless, as one comics professional (albeit a novice one, but an avid, seasoned reader and student) to another, this was a very unprofessional answer, Mr. White. It shows a lack of understanding of one of the most basic marketing principles in comics and one of the titular differences between the medium and regular novels: the marketing purpose of the comic book cover.

While the idiom Mr. White uses, “don’t judge a book by its cover,” is perfectly applicable to normal novels with which any cover art is not guaranteed to express the narrative printed within to any degree of truth or relevance–even going so far as to be abstract or purely symbolic–this idiomatic rule does not apply to comic books.

Let’s give Mr. White the benefit of the doubt, though. Not all modern comic books adhere to this age-old rule that comic book covers need to depict what a reader can expect to find within its pages. Some artists break this rule to express themselves and their interpretation of the story within. Take a look at many of the covers by Dave McKean for The Sandman. They are quite expressionistic and surreal and the average reader probably wouldn’t know what to take away from just the covers in relation to their expectations of what the story is actually about.

Sometimes this rule-breaking method of composing a cover art piece works, but by-and-large it historically doesn’t fly so well with the genre Spider-Man #9 is working in. Not only that but the cover art to Spider-Man #9 by Sara Pichelli and Jason Keith is clearly way off-mark in depicting the book’s story.

Superhero comics historically have cover art that depicts the titular character(s), their villain(s), a tone-setting scene of the story within, or any combination of the three. It used to be common practice to structure the covers as if it were a page from the inner narrative (text balloons and all), ripped out of context to give the readers a brief headline of the who, what, and why of the story. Why was this now-antiquated cover design method used? Because it helped the comic stand out on the magazine rack. The cover sold the reader on whimsy interest.

This is a fundamental marketing rule in comics, especially the superhero genre which is oversaturated with new and continuing titles. This is how comics stay afloat in a tight-pursed economy. This is how creators and publishers drive demand, sales, and competition. Comics have to stand out on the comic shelf, digital or physical, and give readers a quick preview of what they can expect to find using the all-important eye-catcher: the cover art. The cover is, after all, a new reader’s first impression of a comic. Readers are going to judge the shit out of a comic book’s cover before they buy it–and it all happens in an instant.

That’s the problem with the cover art to Spider-Man #9 and Mr. White’s answer to Anonymous. The cover–and this isn’t a variant cover, mind you–clearly depicts a battle between the book’s titular character, Spider-Man, and a fan-favorite (albeit reinvented) Spider-Man rival, Venom. The problem with that, though, is that Venom is nowhere to be seen or heard from in the story. Neither is Spider-Man, really; we get one or two good looks at him, and that’s it.

I don’t follow Spider-Man, but I bought and read this book because the cover told me that Venom was going to be in it. I was the average comic consumer at this point. I have an interest in Venom, and I know that his history with Spider-Man is vital to the character. To me, the average comic consumer-by-proxy, this cover promised a showdown between the two characters.

As a seasoned comic reader who knows the history of these two iterations of the iconic characters and who’s up-to-date on the goings-on in the Marvel world, I had an inkling that this issue was going to focus on their conflict in context of the Civil War II event since an issue of the main event series had already briefly depicted the conflict. I believed it was a safe bet that this issue was going to focus on that fight.

I was wrong. We, comic readers, were all wrong. Spider-Man #9 was, quite plainly, filler that only focused on Spider-Man’s supporting cast. It didn’t even feature the main protagonist. Marvel duped us all. We felt betrayed. As a lifelong Venom fan, I’m all too familiar with the cover bait-and-switch marketing tactic Marvel repeatedly pulls. But this time they went too far. We paid money to see Spider-Man vs. Venom, and we didn’t get it. Anonymous and anyone else who feels the same is within their rights to demand a refund for false advertisement.

That’s what this is: false advertisement. This wasn’t a Spider-Man vs. Venom story as the cover depicted; this was a story about Spider-Man’s friends and families expressing their concerns for Spider-Man. The cover was a lie.

Now, I may be fundamentally irked by this betrayal and Mr. White’s pedestrian excuse for a deceptive marketing ploy, but I won’t demand a refund as Anonymous had suggested. I only ask that you, my patient reader, understand our frustration and why all of this is not okay. This isn’t a comics norm. This needs to be addressed so it doesn’t happen again. Current and future comics professionals need to learn from this example of what not to do when marketing their comics. This breaks readers’ trust in the medium.

This in not okay. This is not professional. This is not how comics work.