House Characters In Comics

[Frank]

Obviously I'm quoting this because it accords with my own views, but it's worth reading/hearing in its own right, not least because it's more incisive than anything we've produced in the prog review thread lately.

Julius Howe, from an unusually thoughtful* episode of the Everything Comes Back To 2000ad podcast:


'Dredd's always been a story that's about forward momentum, whereas War Buds reflects on the past. I'd love to know where Wagner's taking Dredd, because all that will happen at the end of this is the other writers will go back to satirical strips that don't take the story forward.

The book Simpsons Confidential does a really good job of showing how the success of that show wasn't down to one person. Sam Simon told the writers to mine their personal history as story material, which is why those early episodes felt so honest.

When John Wagner writes Dredd, you get John Wagner in the story, and I think that's something missing from a lot of 2000ad stories. Dan Abnett is a great writer, but I don't know who Dan Abnett is because you don't get a lot of Dan Abnett from his stories. Dredd feels so consistent because there's so much of John Wagner coming through.

When those original Simpsons writers moved on, the writers who replaced them were basing what they wrote entirely on The Simpsons. I think that's the same kind of thing you get with Dredd. You've got this Icon (or Titan) of British comics, with all this history, and the writers are basing their stories on the back story.

Rob Williams is writing stories he wants to tell but with Dredd in them; Al Ewing and Michael Carroll are replicating Wagner stories but bringing a bit of themselves. They're really good writers, but the stories don't quite work because the character's so closely associated with his creator.

Even though other writers have come and gone, it's always been John Wagner who took the strip forward. Now we've got this power struggle to see who's going to be the voice of Judge Dredd, but the voice of Judge Dredd is always going to be John Wagner.

I don't think anyone can replace him, because Judge Dredd is not a corporate character - he's too closely tied to his creator. It would be like someone else writing ABC Warriors, or replacing John Smith on Devlin Waugh.

Rebellion are trying to look at these characters as if they're Marvel properties, but they're not. The difference between US and UK characters is they're creator owned characters who aren't owned by their creators.

The characters Tharg tried to treat like corporate IPs - Rogue Trooper, Strontium Dog(s), Robohunter - should have been a lesson learned. Treating these characters as anything other than the product of their creators doesn't work.

With a few exceptions, Alan Grant's recent Anderson stories haven't been great. I don't think he feels he has more to say with the character, but I don't think bringing in another writer helps. New writers need to develop new characters that embody their personalities and take them forward in their own way.

Judge Janus is universally hated, but she was a character who embodied the interests of Grant Morrison and Mark Millar. The stories weren't very good, but they were of their time and of their creators.

I don't think putting Morrison and Millar on Judge Anderson would have made the Anderson strip better, because that strip is such a product of its creators.

Creators need to feel appreciated or they're not going to produce their best work.

If you treat creators separately from their creations, you don't foster a relationship with those creators. Especially with a creator like John Smith, who's quite out there, you've got to put a lot of effort into that relationship and getting them where they need to be to produce their best work.

John Smith was terrible at endings - people just basically turned into lizards or something - but the enjoyment of the stories as they went along was immense. I couldn't understand a lot of what was going on in Revere, but I still enjoyed reading it every week.

Rebellion want a situation like the Marvel production line, but with 2000ad that results in something quite ordinary. That kind of system produces a structure that's functional but lacking the vital spark of originality that makes the best work so memorable.'


The aspect of this commentary I find most persuasive is that it doesn't figure other writers as hacks who lack talent or idiots who simply do not understand what makes a character so great. As Garth Ennis and Douglas Wolk demonstrate, it's possible to write fairly ordinary Dredd strips but still be able to write eloquently and powerfully about Dredd.

The other aspect of Julius's disquisition that resonated with me is the focus on the connection between reader and writer, as opposed to between reader and character. I've never really understood why comic readers follow characters, as opposed to creators.

It's the personality of the writer ** that shines through and causes me to invest in Dredd, Strontium Dog, Indigo Prime and Devlin Waugh. I'm not sure there's anything inherently special about those characters (or any others) - the ordinary-to-awful results of Tharg's previous attempts at turning original creations into house characters suggests not.


* I say thoughtful, but you have to fast forward through an (admittedly entertaining) hour of middle aged men drinking gin and singing cartoon theme tunes to get to the incisive analysis: https://2000ad.wordpress.com/2017/09/26/ecbt2000ad-ep340/

** ... and, in the rare case of Strontium Dog, the artist

[Professor Bear]

Dredd isn't terribly cohesive as a whole*, and the occasional "John Wagner will soon be returning to write Dredd!" editorials probably don't help dispel the notion that only Wagner's scripts are important.  I think writers subconsciously feed this notion, too, by seemingly placing more emphasis on what Wagner does than their fellow non-Wagner scribes.
Or maybe as a reader this kind of insight isn't really objective and it's all in the eye of the beholder.  I don't know.


* Cohesion at this point - after 30 years of the Megazine and God knows how many IDW issues (some of which contradict the stories, tones and styles of others) - must surely be impossible.

[Proudhuff]

There's a whole bundle of stuff in there I agree with and a whole bundle I don't agree with! There's a fair number of assumptions too, about The House of Tharg and motivations of TMO and writers.
I do disagree about The Car-roll droid and I think the GRennie Droid gave good Dredd too.
But as far as I know no-one wants  or can do life changing Dredds unless The big W gives the okay, but he has created an endless sandbox for them to play in.

I think the Rebellion = Marvel riff is way off too.   

[Proudhuff]

* , but you have to fast forward through an (admittedly entertaining) hour of middle aged men drinking gin and singing cartoon theme tunes

You say that like its a bad thing!

[The Adventurer]

When John Wagner writes Dredd, you get John Wagner in the story, and I think that's something missing from a lot of 2000ad stories. Dan Abnett is a great writer, but I don't know who Dan Abnett is because you don't get a lot of Dan Abnett from his stories. Dredd feels so consistent because there's so much of John Wagner coming through.

Is this guy serious? The puns, man, the puns!

But seriously, Abnett has a particular way of writing that I always can spot. That is clearly Dan Abnett.

[Smith]

To use an unrelated example,Thunderbolts v1 (1997-2012).Its probably my favorite comic ever.You would be hard pressed to find a title that went thru more changes( creative team,team members,basic premise),but it was consistently good for all that time (okay,there was that Andy Diggle retool we will never mention again).Point is,you can build upon what came before or tell the stories you want to tell or take the series in  new directions.
Ofc,creator is important.And yes,probably a bit more in the case of 2000ad.But reality is a different matter.So in the end,why not give new writers a chance to take on established characters?With a capable editor,it could work.

[Colin YNWA]

Well bugger me if 'Everything comes back to 2000ad' is being more thoughtful than the board we're in real trouble!

Anyway as luck would have it I'm not sure this quote, much as there is a lot to like in it, really gets to the knub of things. For me it makes two critical errors.

1. It limits Dredd to a character reflecting John Wagner
2. It suggests that 'house characters', or in essence characters interpreted by many writers leds to bad story, as they lose sight of their creator - at least from the writing side - and the voice they lend them.

Dredd has always been such a fantastic character and creation that he can support many types of tales and is robust enough to, when handled well, support the stylings of many a writer and story types.

Look at the Wagner and Grant period of Dredd, it deftly, very subtly at that point, was driving a central development forward, building a city and environment and stepping in all sorts of little side streets to do all sorts of fun things. It could be agrued that it wasn't until the Democrary story line that a solid core momentum was really established. Within that period I'd suggest its well established that the character isn't a reflection of an individual creator but rather, even though largely driven by two writers, a truly great character capable of supporting a host of interpretations and uses.

Dredd has become a vehicle to tell stories, be it about himself as a character, Mega City One as an environment, or the socio-political issues as his world is perfect for satire. Heck Dredd can just be knock about fun.

I often think when folks get so fixed on Wagner Dredd they are missing the point. He's Robin Hood*, he's Zorro* or Doctor Who, he is indeed Batman* or Spidey* to reduce them to 'house characters' is for me pretty short sighted, they are great characters who can support great stories when used well and hence have stood the test of time well beyond their original writer, or a single writer since that has done a bloody good job of telling stories using them.

The true genius of Dredd isn't John Wagner, its that John Wagner, Carlos Ezquerra and Pat Mills developed a character and John made him and this world his own simply 'cos he's a great writer. Its that they created the almost perfect vehicle for story and those stories can come from many writers and artists who can take that gift and run with it. Some will create delights, some of course will create stinkers. But it always strikes me as a shame to limit this great creation by getting transfixed by the talent of the one man (Wagner) who has dominated its (Dredd as a creation) potential - quite justifiably of course.

The other aspect of Julius's disquisition that resonated with me is the focus on the connection between reader and writer, as opposed to between reader and character. I've never really understood why comic readers follow characters, as opposed to creators.

It's the personality of the writer ** that shines through and causes me to invest in Dredd, Strontium Dog, Indigo Prime and Devlin Waugh. I'm not sure there's anything inherently special about those characters (or any others) - the ordinary-to-awful results of Tharg's previous attempts at turning original creations into house characters suggests not.

I guess all my twoddle boils down to the fact that I don't really agree with this. I think there are characters that are fundamentally stonger vehicles for story and the way some characters are returned to again and again testifies to that, literally over centuries.

Secondly by Franks own admission fails to understand that there isn't a. relationship between reader and writer, or reader and character but its far more complex than that and people reading bring a host of needs and desires when they engage with 'imaginative literature' in pretty much any form. So for some, Frank as an example, the needs he currently brings with him are satisfyed (or not) by a writer, or that is now Frank seeks to meet his needs, for others the characters acting as vehicles for story is what works and of course there's a spectum inbetween the two and all sorts of other aspects not limited by far too simple summary.

*Interesting when I reflect on these characters none of them are as good as Dredd in their versatility!

[The Adventurer]

Dredd is one of those unique characters that is capable of dealing with almost any story. Post apocalyptic adventure in the Cursed Earth? Check. Political drama seeped in intrique? Check. Satire soaked Comedy about the day to day lives of people in a mad city? Check. Police procedurals? War tales? Spy thrillers? Parodies of current events? Supernatural horror? Space adventure? Psychedelic thrill ride? Check. Check. Check. Check. Check. Check. Check.

Most action/adventure serial characters can only fit a few molds, but Dredd can, and does, do them all!

[Richard]

I'm with The Adventurer. Dredd's strength is it's versatility. You can tell any story, including Dredd as good guy, Dredd as bad guy, Dredd as main protagonist and Dredd as a support character or even a cameo in his own strip. Serious or funny; political, satirical or escapist; fun or bleak.

[Frank]

I do disagree about The Car-roll droid and I think the GRennie Droid gave good Dredd too.

Yikes! This is the kind of (understandable) remark that causes THREAD DRIFT *

I don't think that's what Julius is saying. The idea that only John Wagner Dredd stories are any good dates back to the first time after the Wagner/Grant partnership split and a rubbish story appeared with a Grant solo credit (Worms, 598, Oct 1988). **

Any reasonable person can see that can't possibly be true, and the fact this theory's most vocal proponent was Scojo should provide anyone nursing such thoughts pause for thought and a nice lie down in a dark room with Alexa playing a selection of pan pipe music.

The idea is more what Pro Bear said; a combination of readers becoming (long) accustomed to an authorial voice and style of storytelling ***, and editorial making the most of an undoubtedly valuable asset (and marketing tool).

If Richard Burton and Alan McKenzie had replaced Wagner with Alan Moore/INSERT YOUR PREFERRED BIG NAME SCRIBE HERE, readers probably wouldn't have invested in Wagner the degree of authority over the strip he retains to this day (even after he's basically retired). But Tharg made a hash of it, so he does/they do.****


* Someone responds to something without quoting it, then a bunch of other posters reply to the sentiments expressed in the summary rather than the original remark itself. The internet functions as an enormous, unending game of Consequences

** The idea gathered steam when Ennis filed his copy for Teddy Bear's Firefight (737), took flight when the Megazine started printing letters that let reader's know what other fans really thought (rather than Tharg's puff pieces), and went into orbit when a panicky McManus/Bishop Tharg screamed at readers LOOK, WAGNER'S COMING BACK AND HE'S WRITING AN EPIC (WILDERLANDS) - JUST PLEASE STOP NOT BUYING THE COMIC!!!

*** If Dredd had continued to be written by whoever was in the office that day, as it was for the first seven issues, we'd all think of Dredd as being as malleable as Batman or Spiderman. The fact he wasn't is just a quirk of fate, but the consequences of that quirk are a fact of life. It doesn't:'t help that the few remaining readers are diehards who have been accustomed to the same authorial voice from Dredd since before they wore long trousers.

**** Wagner was involved in anointing his successor, like Sir Alex Ferguson. The same psychological complexities and conflicting motivations apply in both, similarly unsuccessful, instances

[Colin YNWA]

I don't think that's what Julius is saying. The idea that only John Wagner Dredd stories are any good dates back to the first time after the Wagner/Grant partnership split and a rubbish story appeared with a Grant solo credit (Worms, 598, Oct 1988). **...

If Richard Burton and Alan McKenzie had replaced Wagner with Alan Moore/INSERT YOUR PREFERRED BIG NAME SCRIBE HERE, readers probably wouldn't have invested in Wagner the degree of authority over the strip he retains to this day (even after he's basically retired). But Tharg made a hash of it, so he does/they do.****


Enbiggened without authors permission so we don't all get uneccessary eye strain Someone responds to something without quoting it, then a bunch of other posters reply to the sentiments expressed in the summary rather than the original remark itself. The internet functions as an enormous, unending game of Consequences

See I don't think that's the case. The original quote said...

Rob Williams is writing stories he wants to tell but with Dredd in them; Al Ewing and Michael Carroll are replicating Wagner stories but bringing a bit of themselves. They're really good writers, but the stories don't quite work because the character's so closely associated with his creator.

Even though other writers have come and gone, it's always been John Wagner who took the strip forward. Now we've got this power struggle to see who's going to be the voice of Judge Dredd, but the voice of Judge Dredd is always going to be John Wagner.

I don't think anyone can replace him, because Judge Dredd is not a corporate character - he's too closely tied to his creator. It would be like someone else writing ABC Warriors, or replacing John Smith on Devlin Waugh.

And a few people say 'Speak for yourself, I'm good with others'. Some with beautiful brevity and some... well one who thought it took 980980596 words to express that!

[IndigoPrime]

To my mind, most of this comes down to voice, feel, and the ability to work on a property over time. If you manage to have all three of those, you'll probably be fine. If not, your interpretation of something someone else has created may falter.

In a more general sense, Rebellion has historically been very good at enabling creators to continue with their properties, typically only sometimes farming them out (with variable results – some good; some not) when the people behind them were unwilling or unable to continue writing – or simply uninterested in doing so.

The characters Tharg tried to treat like corporate IPs - Rogue Trooper, Strontium Dog(s), Robohunter - should have been a lesson learned. Treating these characters as anything other than the product of their creators doesn't work.

Except that's not quite true. There have been a few cracks at Rogue Trooper that have been really good. Rennie's run was at least as good as the original. War Machine was an excellent start to something that ultimately went to crap because of what followed it. The IDW Rogue was a springboard to something that sales scuppered, but I'd have been very happy had Tharg bought and reprinted that intro and then asked for more.

Robo-Hunter also: sure, Millar's run was abysmal, but that Hogan/Hughes set for me was pretty great when I re-read it in the chunky phonebook trade (despite the b+w presentation). I certainly enjoyed it a lot more than the tail end of the Wager/Grant/Gibson run (aside from the two closing tales).

With a few exceptions, Alan Grant's recent Anderson stories haven't been great. I don't think he feels he has more to say with the character, but I don't think bringing in another writer helps.

Beeby's Anderson was pretty good; I'd like to see more.

New writers need to develop new characters that embody their personalities and take them forward in their own way.

And then you get 2000 AD filled with new strips, at which point all the old gits bellyache that they never see any of their old favourites. Tharg's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't...

[Sandman1]

But as far as I know no-one wants  or can do life changing Dredds unless The big W gives the okay, but he has created an endless sandbox for them to play in.

Do you think this unspoken (?) rule applies in other media?

[Frank]

The characters Tharg tried to treat like corporate IPs - Rogue Trooper, Strontium Dog(s), Robohunter - should have been a lesson learned. Treating these characters as anything other than the product of their creators doesn't work.

Except that's not quite true ...

It's overwhelmingly true, though. If you want mostly adequate or poor stories - more for the sake of more - house characters are the way to achieve that.*

The examples you cite are mostly one-offs and dead ends** that didn't lead to more stories - which is the definition and sole purpose of the house character.

I don't think anyone would claim that it's impossible to parachute in and create an entertaining one-off; a pastiche of the original creators.

What the lengthy treatise quoted above calls into doubt is the ability of editorially appointed fresh horses to take the strip forward in a way that's sustainable.


** Original stories by original creators are mostly adequate/poor too, but occasionally they produce something great. As the record shows, no house character has ever produced something great - certainly nothing considered better than the original creators.

** I like War Machine too, but it's a story with a beginning, middle and a definite, satisfying end. The most recent run was mostly one (or two) offs - just two six parters and one four part run over three years: http://www.2000ad.org/?zone=thrill&page=profiles&choice=ROGUE&Comic=2000AD

[sheridan]

* Cohesion at this point - after 30 years of the Megazine and God knows how many IDW issues (some of which contradict the stories, tones and styles of others) - must surely be impossible.

More like the progs, megs, annuals and specials.  IDW issues (along with DC, Lawman of the Future and both films) don't need to be cohesive in the same way that Elseworlds, What If?, Gotham, various films and TV series don't need to be cohesive with their respective comics (reboots notwithstanding).