What attracts you to a comic?

[TordelBack]

It's mainly the writer, and less frequently the concept for me. 

I'll seldom pick up* a book based on who's drawing it, but that isn't to say that my enjoyment and longevity of interest once I'm there isn't largely determined by the art.   While I might not like a lot of it, I'll give a fair shake to anything by A. Moore, G. Morrison, Los Bros, Clowes, Seth, Ellis, Ennis, Brubaker, Chester Brown, Gillen, Aaron, Pope, Campbell, Spurrier, Kirkman, Lemire, Jeff Smith, Chadwick, Pak, T. Moore and Stokoe.  And of course most of the current Tooth Writers Stable will draw me in to most of their other projects:  Wagner, Mills, Ewing, Abnett, Edginton, Simon Fraser etc.

A tiny handful artists would lure me into trying a book irrespective of writer or content:  J H Williams III, McMahon, O'Neill, Irving, D'Israeli, PJ Holden, Paquette, B. McCarthy.  I'm not sure whether it's just because I love the range of styles these guys use, or because they tend to work on books that fill my other criteria.

Concept-wise, I'll try almost anything with Romans, biography or autobiography, dinosaurs, jazz, near-future space exploration, noir/crime, neanderthals, doomed romance, art history, Greek myths, porn, political or geographical commentary, and just straight-up adventure.  Preferably all of the above at once.

I'll also have a quick gander at anything that looks like a worthwhile creative team or new direction on a comic or character I used to enjoy (e.g. Spidey, New Mutants, Hulk, Batman etc.), which I imagine is 90% of the business strategy of the Big Two. 



* Although this largely means in the library these days.

[Emperor]

I keep meaning to check out stuff like The Invisibles, but the concepts just don't grab me enough to rush out and buy it.

Now that was just the ticket for me, I'd have read that no matter who the writer was.

Give me Forteana, weirdness, alternate realities, bleeding edge science, thinly-veiled Gnosticism, identity/memory tinkering, secret histories, stories ripped from tomorrow's newspapers, ontological terrorism, folklore/mythology/anthropology, reality hacking, madness, perversion/weird sex, teratology/medical oddities, cannibalism, conspiracies, a smidgeon of ultra-violence and the unexpected (not necessarily in that order and probably best not to fit them all in one story ). Which pretty much describes the rest of my non-comics bookshelves too.

[Judo]

I cover all bases on this question...

I stalk writers such as morrison, ellis, gaiman, grant, ennis, bendis.

I stalk artists such as sienciewicz, quitely (<3 vinnies sexy), dayglo, bisley

I stalk titles such as 2000ad of course , fables, hellblazer,

I stalk 'greatest comics of all time' lists and eisner awards such as jimmy corrigan, black hole, tintin

I stalk small press and local marts designating 20 quid or whatever soley to buying indie comics at marts.

I regularly trade old graphic novels and singles with my friends for stuff I've never heard of cos ffs there's no point keeping every single thing you read just for the sake of it so I end up with all sorts of crazy shit
X x 

[Roger Godpleton]

Well at the moment I don't really read much in the way of "mainstream" comics and I'm quite happy residing in the (mostly) B&W "art" comics ghetto, where I read graphic novels that actually are graphic novels. Ideally I like comics that offer something which wouldn't work as well in other mediums (Woodring is the best example I can think of offhand.)

I like to think that I don't actively discriminate against mainstream comics, and I will always enjoy superheroes (or rather just the concept of superheros?) but most "Adult Readers" ongoing series leave me cold when I'm left thinking that it could have just been a TV series.

Walking Dead sucks ass, is what I'm getting at.

[TordelBack]

Woodring is the best example I can think of offhand.

And what an example.  Plenty of creators do things that can certainly be done best in comics, but there's simply no way Frank could exist in any other medium.

[bigjobs67]

DARROW!! He must be Autistic. How the fuck does he get all that mad detail in there. HARD BOILED is what he is.

[Radbacker]

I like the pretty covers   nah, i'd say I go for writters first then characters, art is art as long as it does the job.  By that I mean I'd read a character I'm not a fan of if written by a writter i like, for exapmle i really couldn't give two shits about Superman but give him to Moore, Morrison or someone who's other stuff i like and i'll give it a go (sometimes even past my chosen writters run too).  So i more stalk writter than characters but sometimes concept just grabs me too (never really liked humor or horror comics but the idea behind Wormwood (immortal maggott inhabiting bodies) just absloulty tickled me so I had to pick it up even though I didn't like the artists stuff in 30 Days of Night).
Of course some writter artist combo's are just unmissable no matter what the subject (Morrison/Quietly, Wagner/Ezquerra, Ennis/Dillion).

CU Radabcker

[WhitBloke]

Yeesh.  This year's winner in the category of "Deceptively simple question prompting genuine thought on an increasingly varied topic" goes to you, Mardroid.

One thing I almost never do anymore - which might say as much for me becoming stagnant and jaded as a reader of the American market's offerings - is pick up a new series at the start.  For example, though fair play to Colin_YMNA, DC's recent relaunch resulted in a massive bump in my squanderable income.  Anywhere between five and twenty years ago, I would've been snapping the buggers up like mad but no longer.  I just can't trust the American big leaguers anymore, regardless of property, creative team or budget... but it's not stopped me needing a junkie fix here and there and my junkie fix tends towards writer over artist.  Unless its an artist I have a pronounced fondness for - an example being Steve Dillon, which saw me break the rule right from #1 with Marvel's Punisher Max.  (Frankly, it could have been written by a chimp and I would have enjoyed loping my eyes over the master of machismo's work, though I would quickly realise that I'd not be spending any more money on that chimp-writer's works without such an artist pull factor.)

That said, like Greg M, the writer tends to be the first hook into me as a punter.  Sometimes, I just can't help but KNOW that the artist chosen to deliver the writer's yarn is a poor decision (or available option) on the editor's part, and that might become a negative influence on my choice whether to buy a monthly or wait for a collection. 
So, yeah, I guess for myself there's definitely editorial/publisher factors.  Is this or that comic being put out under this flag because they couldn't get to create it as it deserved elsewhere?  If there's a sense of that, I can often find myself spending money to see what it is that I would otherwise be missing.  The flip side to this factor, for me, is the sense of a title having too weak or otherwise impeded an editorial leash on the final product.  I've often found myself reading a comic and, either for reasons of script or art or concept or their fusion, realised that the editor is entirely without teeth or an empty suit just hoping that allowing a "free rein" will maximise the merits of attracting attention to what amounts to a story that is "artistically" indulgent, crudely polemic, sloppy or just plain so far up its own creators' behinds that it's lost all sense of audience.  (I have no problem being challenged by the content of any publication; I prefer that challenge not to resound with a sense of "Well, if you don't dig this, you're just not clever/spiritual/human enough to bother worrying about anyway.")

Got to say I'm glad The Adventurer mentioned Grant Morrison as a case in point, though.  Certainly capable of producing some touching or exciting work but... St Swithin's Day and Zenith being quite dandy examples, if hardly recent... but I've actively avoided his stuff whenever there's an indication of an editor being willing to run a slack leash on his moments of excess.  And, oddly enough, allegations of plagiarism that seem to dog these moments....  (There again, I've often thought of Morrison as the Moore-That-Wasn't option for certain publishers and editors over the year, including 2000AD's.)

Ultimately, though...  The racks in the comic shop tend to be the best proving ground for any comic I might decide to throw money at.  It might look a little original, or a have a reliable writer's name emblazoned on the cover, or just catch my eye.  I'll give it a flick and if it strikes a match in the damp recesses of my own soulless life, hey, I'll throw a few quid at it.

But... Dok it...  I've just realised that I'm as much a fan of the direct role of editors as writers.  Which has sincerely surprised me, so thanks for spurring a bit of reflection, Mardroid.

[WhitBloke]

Walking Dead sucks ass, is what I'm getting at.

And you'd be right!

[Evil Pants]

For me, it's often the writer. Either an established one whose work I already enjoy, or a new one whose work I've heard about. It is possible for me to enjoy a superhero or established character book, but these days that's fewer and farther between. What I really want, is freshness. So if I read that Scott Snyder or Nathan Edmondson is doing some good superhero work, the first thing I'll check out is their original work. Original work interests me far more than established characters these days. But, there are times that the opposite happens (I read both Nick Spencer and Nathan Edmondson's creator owned stuff first, and it made me check out their superhero work). I have my favourites of course (If Morrison is doing a superhero book I will most likely ignore it, but if it's a new concept I will check it out. Same for Ellis. But Mark Waid has done some fantastic creator owned stuff to go alongside his strong supehero catalogue).

I do like good art, but that's less important to me than the writing. What I do look for in art is great storytelling, as opposed to just great pin-ups.

Now, the big thing that my answer doesn't really cover, and an idea that most of the answers haven't really cover (though they are all very valid), is that we're not really answering what attracts us to a comic, we're answering what attracts us to a story. Big difference. I find that nowadays there are very few people actually making COMIC BOOKS, as opposed to simply using the medium to tell a story that could have been told in another medium.

For example, Judge Dredd COULD be told in TV or Movie form: It's the specific stories that matter most. But with something like Jeff Smith's Rasl, or Paul Pope's THB, or Dave Sim's Cerebus, it's the MEDIUM that matters most of all. It's not just storytelling, it's creating a comic that has a story. It's a subtle distinction, but it's one that I find myself looking for more and more. Now, this doesn't have to be a writer/cartoonist like Brandon Graham, Matt Kindt or James Stokoe, though those are great examples of what I'm talking about...Mark Waid and Paolo Rivera's Daredevil is a good example as well. It's not just a writer writing scripts...it's creators using the medium so effortlessly that you can barely tell where the story ends, and the art begins.

It's something that I find to be very rare in comics right now, but it's something that I love so much when I find it. Other examples of what I'm talking about:  Cooke's Parker adaptations, Kindt's SuperSpy, Jim Steranko's Nick Fury comics, anything by Chris Ware or Daniel Clowes, etc.

[The Adventurer]

Walking Dead sucks ass, is what I'm getting at.

And you'd be right!

'Sucks Ass' seems a little harsh. Maybe because I've been reading it for 10 years and 90-odd issues now, but I feel I must defend its honor. Its a flawed work, yes (Robert Kirkman does love his walls-of-text dialog sometimes) but for the majority of its run its been at least entertaining and it certainly is different from the norm. Its one of a handful of titles that I genuinely don't know what's going to happen next, and no character is safe. Its an epic, post-apocalyptic nightmare (what attracted me to it in the first place). Its exactly the kind of comic I seek out on a regular bases.

Its a better Zombie epic then DeFoe, is what I'm getting at.

[Colin YNWA]

...Mark Waid and Paolo Rivera's Daredevil is a good example as well. It's not just a writer writing scripts...it's creators using the medium so effortlessly that you can barely tell where the story ends, and the art begins.

Having just readthe trade of these I have to agree, it really is a team of creators getting the best out of a specific medium.

The ability of a story to be told in comics better than in any other medium is one of the reasons I tend to go towards superhero comics more than any other genre. I really think that all the recent glut of superhero movies have proven is that comics tell those stories better than other media. I really don't get on with prose superhero stuff, very little prose sci-fi come to that. Or rather I think there are stories told much better in prose. Comics enable such stories to be told unbound without compromise. Superhero movies are all about the compromises made to make the stories seem real. Superhero stories in comics can (alas a lot less often these days as people try to ape movies more and more) made to be simply magnificent, imagination unbound by limitations.

I find it very hard to believe that anybody could make some of Jack Kirby's 70s stuff even close in any other medium.

[I, Cosh]

One more who'd say it's the name of a writer I like which would convince me to pick up a new comic. I'm starting to feel sorry for all the artists out there now, everyone's going on about how they like art, but it wouldn't get them to buy something. I'll make an exception for Brendan McCarthy here.

Recommendations on here, from people whose tastes I judge to be similar enough to my own, have got me to try things. Reviews on Comics Should be Good have also encouraged me to pick up things I wouldn't otherwise have considered. Although sometimes enjoyment of the review itself colours this, it's still two good (Phonogram, Northlanders) to one bad (Godland.)

I liked Mr Pants distinction about what attracts you to a comic specifically. Boringly, I'd say the promise of a good story.

[Mattofthespurs]

The free gifts.
Space spinner, bionic man stickers, survival wallet... What's not to like.

[Mardroid]

But... Dok it...  I've just realised that I'm as much a fan of the direct role of editors as writers.  Which has sincerely surprised me, so thanks for spurring a bit of reflection, Mardroid.

You're welcome, but the credit should go to DaveyCandlish. 'Twas his idea.