GILLEN, WILSON, LARK & HUEHNER ON CREATIVE PROCESS, IMPORTANCE OF REFLECTING MODERN FANDOM
It's often easy to look at a creative decision and recognize why it might not be a great choice. It's natural to have gut reactions -- and comic fans are nothing if not vocal. But analyzing those reactions to find the source of concern can prove much more challenging. As the bar is raised in comics -- as in any growing creative medium -- and with reader expectations maturing, the industry must find ways to improve and adapt. Norms are changing, paradigms are shifting and the community is responding. There is frequent dialogue about representation,
sexualization and freedom of expression, and while many of these conversations are productive and eye-opening, they can also become contentious.
Last year, writer Janelle Asselin was attacked across social media after she wrote a reasonable critique of DC's "Teen Titans" #1 cover. Shortly after, Milo Manara's "Spider-Woman" butt broke the Internet for several days as fans debated the intentions behind his erotic depiction of the beloved superheroine.
While plenty of ink has been spilled over the effect of some of these controversial decisions and whether they should have been made in the first place, we wanted to explore the how. What goes into these decisions? How do writers, artists and editors speak authentically through their work? How does change occur within a company or across the industry? Who are the people involved in conversations about content?
Joined by Kieron Gillen (writer, "The Wicked + The Divine," "Young Avengers"), Mariah Huehner(editor, IDW Publishing; writer, "Angel"), G. Willow Wilson (writer, "Ms. Marvel") and Michael Lark(artist, "Lazarus"), CBR News presents the first of a two-part look at the editorial process and how it impacts the comics we read.
In your experience, what has the process of character design been like, both from a creator and editorial perspective?
Kieron Gillen: It depends on the company and the editor and the property and the artist and the genre and the lunar calendar and the seasons and everything else. There's too many variables to easily give a generalized answer.
One thing I'll stress is that it's a collaboration. This is a truism in comics. Specifically, it's a collaboration with the artist. There's been occasions when there's a choice I wouldn't necessarily have made which the artist loves, but that give and take has to be part of the exercise. The artist is not the writer's servant any more than I'm their word-monkey.
Mariah Huehner: As an editor, I have a lot of conversations with the writer and artist about each character's role in the narrative, who they are, what they want, what their arc is, and how what they look like informs all of that. I don't think I've ever not had that conversation, whether it's about something as mild seeming as hair color to make sure characters don't all look alike, to creators wanting to make sure they don't have an all-white cast as default. I do my best to be conscious of that whether I'm writing or editing as well, because we all have biases and can't always see when we default to a status quo. It's usually not intentional but that doesn't make it any less of a problem when it comes to representation.
Most of the time, as an editor, I just say, "Hey, I noticed our cast is skewing very white. Let's think about that and what we can do to diversify so it's relatable to more readers and
potential audiences." I honestly can't remember a time a creator has ever pushed back on that, most want that kind of feedback. They want their books to show a world that acknowledges different points of view, experiences, and types of people.
As a creator, I'm always questioning myself. I'm white so it's easy for me to default white with a character. I'm familiar with it, I know that experience. And it's easy, which immediately makes me suspicious. I don't want to tell easy stories from just one perspective. And I don't want readers to get the same old point of view from my work, either. As an example: when I started on "Emily & The Strangers" for Dark Horse the editor and I were very active about making sure the cast was not all white goths. It's a book about kids who love music, on the cusp of adolescence, who maybe don't fit in anywhere, but they do together. That's an experience anyone can relate to and it was really important that we reflect that in the cast's makeup.
I don't believe in being passive about this kind of thing, I think the only way to really change the status quo is to be active and deliberate about it.
Kieron, your work both in licensed and creator-owned work shows a great range of representation and diversity. Can you talk about what that process has been like?
Gillen: Thank you. I kinda consider what I do the bare minimum. If I was to give a single thing, is that creators have more freedom than I think they sometimes think they have. If it's a work-for-hire gig, you're being hired for your creativity and ideas. Almost all the ideas I've had, which I suspect are considered a bit radical in terms of representation and diversity, have been warmly encouraged by the editors, and if it's provoked heat from other quarters, the editors have fought our corner. That shouldn't surprise anyone. That you were hired for the job means they wanted you to do the job, which means they want you to do what you do. I understand this is a relatively recent development -- I've had creators tell me that a decade ago, things were thrown back more regularly... but at least in the climate I've experienced in work-for-hire at Marvel, that's no longer true.
In creator-owned or creator-originated (i.e. stuff I've made up, but isn't owned by me -- "Uber," for example) it's the same but more so. There's no external limitations of history or universe, so you can start with a blank slate. In the case of "The Wicked + The Divine," Jamie and I expressly wanted to create a pop-fantasy that spoke to the world around us. You just do it. I mean, no work is going to be perfectly diverse -- the point is that a healthy medium includes all the diversity in life. Comics are for everyone but not no individual comic could or should be for everyone.
(Of course, it's also true that reading things not "for" you is good for you. Being able to empathize with life experiences different from your own is one of the powerful things fiction allows.)
Has there ever been a time when you had reservations about the appearance of a character? How did you challenge it?
Huehner: If I think diversity is lacking or there's an issue with a depiction, I tend to be pretty forthright and direct. As an editor you don't want to be insulting but you also don't want to be coy. It's your job to make sure the book reflects the tone it's trying to achieve, so I'm very hands-on with how character looks are developed. I tend to lay out guidelines with the creator, or if it's an established character like in a licensed book, provide reference and give notes on what look we're going for.
Even if a character is, say, very sexual, that's no reason to go the obvious route and just have bland cleavage hanging out all over the place. Other character traits should come before "sexy" unless there's a really compelling reason for it to be front and center. I mean, I worked on a Jenna Jameson comic and a series with the Suicide Girls. Sexy was important to both, but there had to be more than that. There had to be personality and strength. I think I've managed to avoid the Sexy Lamp trope, even in books that were meant to be more fun cheesecake than deeply introspective.
I did have to simply tell a writer once that their depiction of a beloved character was not appropriate and that they'd have to rewrite their script to better reflect who she was. I knew that fans would have a serious problem with the writer's take (as I did) and it just didn't fit the tone or character at all. I don't think they were super thrilled, and I didn't work with them again. But it was still the right call to make and, you know, my job to make it.
Gillen: A few times. You tend to attack it head on, normally in a way that speaks to the character. How I dealt with Emma Frost and how I'm dealing with Angela are very different approaches. Emma Frost's appearance is about her character juxtaposed to the culture she finds herself -- i.e. she dresses provocatively for many reasons, not least as she knows its effect. Angela is the opposite -- her appearance is culturally derived. She has no interest in its effect -- which is a problematic trope in another way -- but speaks to how we present her on the page.
G. Willow Wilson: I can think of a particular project, I won't say which, where the original character designs essentially had one of the characters in underwear. I was like, "Nope." It wasn't a malicious conspiracy to objectify women or anything, and all it took was for the editor and me to say no, and then they went back to the drawing board and put her in pants.
Gillen: And a lot is presentation. You can have a character dressed from head to toe in a heavy space ship, and if the artist just frames it in ass-shots and male-gazes, it's going to be a problem. When you've got someone like Phil Jimenez doing "Angela," there's a dignity and utter level of terror provoking to how she holds herself, despite her dress sense.
What do you risk when you challenge a character design like that?
Wilson: I'm in a unique position because I've worked with female editors nearly my entire time in comics. I started out with Karen Berger at Vertigo, at Marvel with Sana Amanat and Jeanine Schaffer -- but even when I've worked with male editors like Steve Wacker, who is the guy who suggested changing Ms. Marvel to the title of Captain Marvel and putting her in some pants. I think there are lots of editors who use their powers for good, who not only are open to changing the appearances of characters but are often the ones spearheading that change.
It's a give and take, in comics much more so than novel writing or journalism. The editor has a much, much bigger role in the creation of the story than they might otherwise. It's a collaborative process and if editors aren't open to design changes or updating them to make them more dynamic, then they don't happen. So when you do see those changes, you can know that the editors have been intimately involved.
This is a big debate. I remember when I was writing "Vixen" a few years ago for DC and we wanted to get her in an outfit that was less skimpy than what she was usually in -- it's a process. Even in the last couple of years, there's been a re-awakening on both sides of that line, creators and editorial. They are realizing that there are other stories to be told and figuring out how to go about unpacking some of the baggage, especially about the ways in which women have been portrayed, and do it in a way that's more reflective of the 21st century.
Michael, has there ever been a time in your career where you have felt any kind of pressure to draw things in a way that didn't feel good for you?
Michael Lark: No, I've never had that. I've always come on to characters that were already designed, so I didn't have to worry about it. I think that in my case, probably any editor that's hired me knew what they're getting. I'm a known quantity and no one's ever seen me draw like that, so they didn't have that expectation of me. I tend to draw characters that are very grounded and realistic. That's probably part of the reason they've hired me. I don't think I could draw anything else; it's not in my nature. It's not who I am. If an editor had wanted me to, I probably would've just quit.
What's been important to you about maintaining integrity with your style?
Lark: It's just how I see the world. This kind of goes into the conversation you're having -- it's hard to point a finger at something and say that's its offensive for these reasons, and this isn't offensive for these reasons. I don't think you can make a general set of definitions about that.
For example, at a recent convention, directly across from me was a table that had a banner on it that was incredibly inappropriate for a convention with kids in attendance. Even as an adult I found it offensive. It wasn't the subject matter, it wasn't necessarily the pose, or the way it was drawn; it was the spirit of the thing that was so offensive toward women. I actually took a picture of it and showed it to people. All of my friends have very open minds, we're not prudes or anything, but everyone said, "Yeah, that's offensive." At the same time, I can see a piece of pin-up art and love it. So it's not a matter of nudity or how much or little clothing a character has on, it's not the features of the character; it's the spirit of the thing.
To go back to your question, I could never do that. It's not a matter of choice; it's who I am. I think that's part of the problem with a lot of the stuff you see on shelves and at conventions. It's not the subject matter or way it's drawn as it is the mindset of the people that create it. It gets infused into the art itself.
How can creators affect change when it comes to showing diverse representations?
Wilson: In part, it's a matter of being responsive to the fans. The fan base has been growing and diversifying rapidly in recent years. The statistic is, I think, if you go to a convention, its split 50/50 between men and women. You have more minorities becoming interested in comics and it's almost inappropriate to even talk about minorities, or women, as the "minority" anymore. We have a new demographic where things break down much more evenly than they did in the past; it's no longer a majority of one particular segment of the population that reads comics, with them getting catered to and leaving everyone else in the dust.
It's taken the comics industry a little bit to catch up with the fact that their readers are changing. One of the most important things in a situation like that, where things are changing rapidly, is to remain flexible. We can't get bound up in the idea that a history of a particular character is sacred -- if they've worn a particular costume since the 1960s you can't change it, you must have a boob window, that this is somehow mandatory when you make a costume for a woman. We have to stop looking at the history as unchangeable. Instead we have to be flexible and open to the fact that comics are meant to represent the zeitgeist of the times. If the times change, you have to change with them or you going to get left behind. On a practical level, that's what it's about -- remaining open to change and not feeling bound to keep repeating the same kinds of formulas that may have worked in the past but don't work any longer.
And that concludes the first part of our exploration of editorial's role in modern comics making. Check back tomorrow for Part 2, when we discuss balancing the needs of the story with reader desire, unnecessary sexualization of female characters, how much responsibility creators have in setting and maintaining the tone of the community surrounding their work and more.