In his “Permanent Damage” online column, writer Steven Grant discusses what he thinks is the lesson people don’t draw from successful creators. Although he’s discussing comic-books, I think it’s generally applicable:

“The problem is that everybody ignores two key aspects of WATCHMEN: while
it drew on the long tradition of superhero comics, it made specific points
that had not been made before (or, at least, not so publicly), and Alan
and Dave made their points and got. The hell. Out.

WATCHMEN didn’t exist to create a franchise. It existed to tell a story.
Period. You may not like the story, you may love the story, you may not
think it was worth telling or whatever, but all that’s irrelevant. It
existed to tell a story. A story. Prequels? Sequels? Regular series? Why?
No need for them. People want to read new Rorschach stories? So what? Is
there anything of importance anyone needs to know about Rorschach that
isn’t already in WATCHMEN? Would a secret failed marriage or an
unmentioned half-brother or expanded rogues gallery or any of the other
soap opera tripe that passes for characterization in superhero comics make
him a better character? In fact, WATCHMEN is anti-franchise. The best any
attempt to revisit the characters can hope for is to not weaken or subvert
the original work. About the best anyone intentionally doing their “own”
WATCHMEN can achieve is pathetic knockoff status.

(snip)

Throughout my professional lifetime, I’ve watched talent go to Marvel or
DC and occasionally other places, simply so they could work on Jack
Kirby’s characters. And do “their” version of Kirby. This includes people
I consider friends. Again, it’s one thing to have a good OMAC story in
mind, but I’m talking about people whose greatest dream in life is to make
their careers continuing Kirby characters. I don’t think there was one of
them who didn’t believe their work on his characters somehow honored
Kirby’s contributions to the field. I only spoke to Jack twice in my life,
but one of those times I asked him about this.

In fact, Jack did not feel honored. He wasn’t upset about it, and didn’t
complain (like others I’ve known in similar positions have) that he hadn’t
been hired instead to work on his own characters. He was saddened. Why?
Because he hadn’t spent his career just working. He’d spent it creating,
and constantly coming up with new characters and new creations wherever he
had the chance.

What saddened him was that message – create your own, create your own,
create your own - wasn’t the legacy his career was leaving for new talents
instead.

Likewise, the message talent should be getting from WATCHMEN is: tell the
story you want the way you want to, make the story your only, know when
there’s no story left, then get. The hell. OUT. And two decades on,
they’re still not getting that message.

We have to drum it into our heads: if you like Jack’s work, or Alan’s
work, or Warren’s or Robert Crumb’s or Daniel Clowes’ or Jim Lee’s or
whoever’s, do not imitate their work.

Imitate their example.”

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.