AudioShocker

There are two interesting, almost diametrically opposed editorial pieces out right now, one disliking the trend of "auteurism" in superhero comics, and the other in support of auteurism if it means more ambitious storytelling.

First off, lemme say that both Kyle and Chad raise great points. I agree with both of them in many respects, and that's why I'm writing this -- to propose a more balanced point of view, while, at the same time, calling out both of them for falling into something I'm going to dub the "false cult of comics creation."

Let me explain this "cult" concept I'm introducing: basically, it stands for the idea that shared-universe comic creator auteurs at Marvel and DC can even exist in the first place. I believe this is a false notion. Shared-universe superhero comic books at Marvel and DC simply can't be produced in an auteur fashion. Kyle sort of recognizes this early on in his editorial in relation to film auteurs, but seems to forget it later on while railing against what he feels is an auterial mindset at the Big Two.

The way I see it, fan perception and marketing hype make it SEEM like mainstream superhero comics have auteur creators. Tom Brevoort is just as much a part of Civil War or Death of Captain America as anyone else. How come he's not dubbed an auteur editor? Because it makes financial sense for Marvel to push the notion of Millar and Brubaker as auteurs. It's much sexier to read a comic from the "genius mind of SO-AND-SO" rather than from "the exceptionally synergistic committee of editors, writers, artists, and print production managers."

Superhero comics like Johns' Blackest Night and Millar's Civil War physically cannot be produced in an auteur fashion. There are just too many layers of creation and production in mainstream superhero comics for that to even be a consideration. So while Kyle and Chad are debating the merits of sharing the characters in the superhero sandbox with respect, they're actually failing to see that the collective sandbox is the very thing that's doing the heavy lifting here.

I believe that the auteur image is added later on when it's time to present the story to comic book readers (or, in some cases, the occasional writer actually buys into his or her own auteur image and hypes the project as their creative baby).

It's pretty well known that Civil War was plotted at creative summits (I keep going back to Civil War because Kyle dislikes its disruptive tendencies, and I think it's a good example of Millar's faux auteur image). The story was essentially dreamed up by a large group of editors and writers. Then the visuals were handed off to a team of artists, whose work was reviewed by editors, and then produced for print by a whole other team of pros. The comic itself is a product of the sandbox at large.

Again, I'm not saying that Kyle or Chad completely reject this notion, but rather that their debate is centered upon the largely false idea that auteur creators are alive and well at the Big Two. And that's sort of the problem -- the auteur thing is propagated by fans and critics as well.

Like Kyle says, criticizing the work of an auteur makes criticism easier. But it also over-simplifies the creation process. Here's a quick personal example: I recently finished work on my upcoming comic book, Time Log. I'm a co-writer, an inker, a letterer, a gray-toner, and a printing consultant. Along with me, there's another co-writer, a penciler, and a team of press operators that actually printed the damn thing.

I say all that to say this -- when someone asks me what work I did on the comic, they tend to be confused with my answer. I get follow up questions like, "so you did the art?" or "so you're the writer?" And in my case, the answer is both yes and no. I wrote it collaboratively. I worked on the art along with another artist.

Mainstream superhero comics are even more collaborative than my experience, but it's difficult to always take the time to recognize that as a fan or critic. To acknowledge the work of the many, you have to write more credits and ask more questions, and -- this is what it really comes down to -- place praise or blame on the group instead of the individual.

I used to write weekly comic book reviews, so I know how tough it is to credit everyone. As a reviewer, even though I always mentioned colorists and letterers, I always felt my weakness was that I didn't recognize the production workers or the editorial staff enough. Problem is, it takes time and effort to discuss every step of the process. Just recognizing the work of one or two perceived auteurs is so much easier.

To bring it all back home, my point it this: Chad and Kyle present interesting and informational POVs regarding the concept of superhero comic book auteurs working in modern shared universes. But their respective pieces fail to take into account the fact that these auteurs they're debating don't really exist outside of the realms of marketing, fan perception, and criticism, at least not in any significant way. When the characters, a.k.a. the toys in the sandbox, are left beat up and broken after a particular story, that's the result of collective action -- whether conscious or not -- on the part of a group of writers and editors, not just a couple of genius-level auteur creators.

That's not to say that guys like Millar and Morrison aren't auteurs in their own fashion, because they are when they're working on more independent projects. But there's simply not enough creative room in the mainstream superhero creative process for their kind to be true auteurs in a situation where every decision is being approved on multiple editorial levels and then brought to life by a crew of visual artists. It's a false notion that could easily be dispelled by better marketing, more thorough criticism, and the willingness of fans to recognize true collective effort while ignoring hype.