Final Minx Creative Count

In honor of the late Chick Checks, let’s count female creators: The complete 2007 Minx lineup was announced yesterday. Two are by male writer/artists. Two are by separate male writers and artists. One is by a male writer with two male artists. One is cowritten by a male and his daughter and illustrated by a male. One is by a female writer and male artist. (I’ve talked about the new imprint previously here and here.)

So, we have seven books with a total of 14 creators, of which two are female (and one’s role, if accurately reported, opens the door to cries of nepotism, although it does shoot down all those people arguing vehemently that DC needed to use only recognizable, well-known names and that’s why they couldn’t include more women). 2 out of 14 is 14.28%. Counting the editors as creators (but is that really the kind of book we’re hoping for, strongly editorial-driven?) raises the percentage to 25% (4 out of 16), which certainly reads much better.

For comparison, that’s better than DC staple-format comics did every week but one when I was looking for female creator names in those credits. Their average over five months (two years ago) was 9.22%. (Marvel, due to more editorial assistants at the time, always did better than DC, averaging 11.52% over the same time frame.) And as is the case in this situation, the strongest representation was usually among editorial.

But I can only imagine what the press would do if the Logo channel, targeted at gays, had over 85% of their shows created by straights. Perhaps that’s not a fair example, given that gays already get a lot of Hollywood work, and the same can’t be said about women in comics. How many black creators does BET have? How many black actors are represented on that network? I know Lifetime has a ton of visible females.

In short, how do you talk to a target audience if you’re not allowing members of that audience to speak?


53 Responses to “Final Minx Creative Count”

  1. Hal Shipman Says:

    Actually, speaking from experience, a lot of the content on Logo is, in fact, produced by straights. The rugby team I coached and co-founded, the Chicago Dragons, was the subject of a Logo-produced documentary which aired on their very first day of broadcast. And practically every other hour since then, it seems. Anyway, the direction, production and editing teams were all, to a person, straight. Which even they thought was odd, but… Some of the channel management is LGBT, though there are a lot of Viacom/MTV people there. I’ve stayed in touch with our producer and that’s still pretty much the case.

  2. Hal Shipman Says:

    Not that my anecdotal example should imply I disagree with your point. I’ve been reading the Luke Cage: Power Man Essentials this past week and keep thinking, “I know it was the 70’s and all, but damn, this is pretty backwards, borderline-racist stuff. No way a black writer would turn this out.” It’s really like watching a car accident for me. It’s horrific, but I can’t look away.

    While having a creator of the same race, gender, sexuality of the primary characters in no way means that the work will be any good, I do think doing so puts you a lot closer in the ballpark for success.

  3. Lisa Lopacinski Says:

    What do you think about DC’s claim that there weren’t women interested in working on these graphic novels for them? That’s part of the problem, if it’s true. Could be that women creators have heard about DC’s behind the scenes and don’t want to work there? Or, is it just that women creators aren’t working on all-age books? Or maybe female writers and artists aren’t making comics? My questions for DC would be: how many total people applied, how many were considered, and how many of each were female? I think that until we know if women were asked to participate, and if they were interested in participating, we can’t completely blame DC for their lack of representation. I don’t know how one could really find that out though – all we have is DC’s word that not many were.

  4. Lea Says:

    I find it hard to believe that DC couldn’t find any more female creators (and no experienced female comics creators in three years. Considering that creators didn’t even know that their books would be part of a line marketed to girls, I think a better question is “How were the women asked?”
    Reading posts by Minx creators in various forums, it’s clear that at least some pitched quite a few things, and started working on them several years ago. A two-year-or more pipeline coupled with a “throw it at us, see if it sticks” curatorial (as opposed to editorial) manner isn’t very attractive. It’s a cattle call–a realllly slow cattle call.

    So far, one woman, Shaenon Garrity, has said she was approached and rejected. That’s “agressive,” as some claim?

    In short, sure we can blame DC. It’s not like female creators are that hard to find. They’re extremely well-represented on that new-fangled thing called the web.

  5. one diverse comic book nation » THE SHORT STACK: Diversity On The ‘Net - November 29, 2006 Says:

    [...] Final Minx Creative Count – Johanna gives us the gender breakdown of creators for the first Minx line-up (from Comics Worth Reading) [...]

  6. Nat Gertler Says:

    I think that there being only one female creator who has said that they were approached and rejected. I can think of a number of female creators who I would have approached for projects a couple years back for something like this who would have been involved or about to be involved in larger projects and thus not available for me.

  7. Nat Gertler Says:

    Oh, there was an editing error in that last one. That there being only one who has said, doesn’t mean that there was only one who -was-. That’s what I meant to say.

  8. Johanna Says:

    Hal: Interesting example, thanks. Do you have any idea of how much of the Logo content is pre-existing vs created by/for them?

    Lisa: I believe that women were approached to work on the books. Based purely on my own speculation, I suspect that many of them didn’t like the terms or the delays or the offer or the editorial structure (or some combination of the above). DC isn’t the easiest company to work with, as we’ve heard recently.

    But I think that, if that was the case, it would have behooved DC to reconsider what these women found problematic instead of effectively saying “fine, we’ll go with all these guys, then.” But that would require DC being willing to consider that their approach might be wrong.

  9. Mickle Says:

    What do you think about DC’s claim that there weren’t women interested in working on these graphic novels for them?

    That – like their claim that Minx is all about reaching out to new audiences – it’s mostly BS – but with just a hint of truth in it (see Johanna’s answer) so that they can wave it about when anyone with half a brain goes :p…….

  10. Barry Says:

    While I agree that it would make sense for there to be more female creators on a line aimed at that particular gender, I also wonder what the stated intent of the line is. Is it to reach a female audience, regardless of the talent, or is it’s stated mandate to reach a female audience by using female talent? Based on the current creator lineup, I’m guessing it’s definitely not the latter, which means DC as a business unit has no obligation to hire female creators based solely on their gender. And it doesn’t look like they’re stifling a female voice, as your statement pointing out that they’re not allowing members of that audience to speak. This is only their initial lineup, which most certainly leaves room for more female creators to work for the imprint.

    In many ways, this goes back to the affirmative action debate. Do you hire talent based on their ability or do you hire them based on their ability as well as gender?

  11. Johanna Says:

    The stated intent of the line is to attempt to divert members of an already established market (teen girls interested in graphic novels) to buying more comics from DC.

    Trying to do this with next-to-no women creators is a typically backwards attempt, which is typical of DC. And saying that “if they’d hired more women, they’d have done so out of affirmative action” is a slap in the face of the many talented female comic creators, because it implies that they wouldn’t be able to get work solely on their abilities.

    I share your hope that there will be more women involved later… but I suspect that if that was the case, someone would have said so already to quell this debate.

  12. Allen Says:

    “And saying that “if they’d hired more women, they’d have done so out of affirmative action” is a slap in the face of the many talented female comic creators, because it implies that they wouldn’t be able to get work solely on their abilities.”

    Why is it impossible that they weren’t able to get work solely on their abilities, this time around? This is a line that ended up turning away talent like Bryan Lee O’Malley. As for the issue of “how aggressively did DC pursue female creators”. If I was a female comics writer, and DC Comics announced their first ever imprint NOT aimed at manchildren in comic shops? They would not have to beat down my door to get me to pitch. Why can’t it just be that there were proportionally more male creators that pitched than there were female (as it is in the industry at large), so that proportion carried over to those that made the cut?

  13. Lyle Says:

    Johanna, from looking at Logo’s schedule in the past, they take a lot from their sister networks when the episode’s content has LGBT themes, especially Comedy Central stand-up specials with LGBT comedians, though I’m surprised I haven’t seen any episodes from MTV’s dating shows.

    Overall, though, it’s a young network and networks that size mostly exist on content from elsewhere.

    Then again, while the network is gay themed, I’m not sure if I’d say the target are LGBT viewers. A while back (before the Logo name was announced) a Viacom employee mentioned on an e-mail group that the big factor in getting the network okayed came when research showed that the largest audience for Queer as Folk was heterosexual women and they felt assured that a larger population would watch.

    As for Minx, from past discussions of women working at DC, I know I’ve been disappointed to see names who’s work I enjoyed on indie comics who, it turned out, were only doing the occasional fill-in at DC. Christine Norrie is the only example I can remember, but I hope some of those creators show up at Minx since there’s already a working relationship and they’ve done great work elsewhere.

  14. Johanna Says:

    Bryan Lee O’Malley has publicly stated that he dropped out, i.e. left them, not that he was “turned away”, as you have it.

    DC didn’t announce this line until now, so your hypothetical seems to assume some conditions that weren’t the case. A new line isn’t only created by welcoming pitches, it’s also composed by editors (especially those with a strong vision) seeking out the kinds of creators they want to work for and represent it. That’s why your “why can’t it be” isn’t very likely.

  15. Johanna Says:

    Lyle, my TV guru, thank you for the Logo info.

  16. Journalista » Blog Archive » Nov. 30, 2006: Sometimes with ears of corn Says:

    [...] When the first question in ICv2’s Minx-related interview with DC vice-president Karen Berger might as well read, “So that opening quote in the New York Times that everyone laughed at: You aren’t really that dumb, are you?” you know it’s damage control. Still, it’s a good and informative conversation about DC Comics’ aims and strategy for the new teen-girls line of graphic novels, even if one question — Who owns the rights to the resulting works? — is still left unanswered. Related: Johanna Draper Carlson counts up the number of female creators involved with the project, notes that it’s miserable, yet still better than the percentage of female creators working for DC Comics in general. Ouch. Also related: Steven Grant weighs in on the line with some smart commentary from a business perspective, as does Virginia retailer Sam Hobart. [...]

  17. W. Rowntree Says:

    The comparison with gays and blacks is invalid, unfortunately. These two groups are minorities, while women constitute 50-52% of the population. As marginalized people, women are typically lumped in with minority groups, which has the effect, I think, of downplaying the plight of women. Women are proportionately far more underrepresented in the media than minorities (and more so again in terms of the variety of ways in which they are portrayed), and so this issue should be adressed separately so that it does not continue to be downplayed. A 14% portion of female creators on a line of comics targeted at females is ludicrous, and so one has to wonder what exactly motivated this whole Minx thing if there are little to no women involved in its creation? The answer is, of course, obviou$. This is purely an attempt to cash in on an untapped market, under the guise of something progressive. It will predictably fail, and the industry will be right back where it started (in terms of diversity) until the male-centric superhero dominance of comics is weeded out. Too bad the garden is 90% weeds. Moreover, targeting an audience does not work, unless that audience is undiscriminating or immature (ie: fanboys). People know what they like, and it’s not usually what they’re TOLD they like. Unless we’re talking about fanboys, but they’re the problem to begin with. No fanboys–> no superheroes–> no problem. No hope of that, though. What a mess.

  18. Ryan Day Says:

    So out of curiousity, which creators would you replace? Who should have been a part of the initial launch?

  19. david brothers Says:

    Moreover, targeting an audience does not work, unless that audience is undiscriminating or immature (ie: fanboys). People know what they like, and it’s not usually what they’re TOLD they like

    This isn’t really true. I think you’ll find that a lot of pop culture is exactly what you’re saying it isn’t. Check out the similarity of a lot of tv shows, music, and movies. Compare the box office results to critical reviews.

    People will buy, and have bought, whatever they are told is cool and worth purchasing by the people who make it. That’s hype, and hype works.

  20. Johanna Says:

    Ryan, there are any number of talented female comic creators, many of whom do books that I think teen girls would find interesting and entertaining.

  21. Ryan Day Says:

    Of course that’s a very good list.

    But I think we could safely exclude a few of them based on content, like Carla Speed McNeil. Marjane Satrapi, and quite possibly Alison Bechdel, are probably out of DC’s price range.

    Several of them have deals with much bigger publishers – why would Chynna Clugston leave Scholastic for a new imprint when she’s already working for a successful “real” publisher? I have no idea what everyone’s contracts and workloads are like, but if Bryan O’Malley wasn’t available because he couldn’t find the time, why not others?

    And at least three of them have done work for Berger & Bond at Vertigo, so I find it unlikely they were being excluded from Minx. Jill Thompson in particular has been given the keys to Vertigo’s most successful franchise several times, and I’d honestly be surprised if she hadn’t been approached for the line.

    We obviously don’t know who was invited and who was rejected and who rejected Minx, because most creators aren’t going to talk about it. It seems unfair to accuse Berger and Bond of discriminating against female creators when they’ve shown no tendency to do so in the past.

    Anyway, you only answered half my question: Who among the announced Minx creators isn’t good enough?

  22. Johanna Says:

    You’re making all kinds of excuses and suppositions, many of which have already been discussed, and your last question is pointless and irrelevant, since no one discussing this has suggested such a thing. (No one has accused the editors of discrimination, either.) The key point is: DC should have tried harder to include more women. Make better deals. Be more flexible in scheduling. Don’t demand as much control. Whatever they needed to do to include more female creative voices.

  23. Ryan Day Says:

    It’s not irrelevant unless your argument is that there needs to be a specific percentage of women working for the imprint. Are women generally a better choice for writing books for women? Maybe. But are these particular creators unsuited to creating material for a young female audience? I don’t think so, but it’s a defensible position if you disagree.

    But if you believe, as I do, that they’re perfectly good writers and artists who are suited to the audience, suggesting that DC should have offered better deals to women just so they could have women working on their books is ridiculous. If you think they should have offered better terms to get better creators, then that, too, is a defensible position.

    But “There Should be More Women” does suggest the current creators aren’t good enough, and “DC should have tried harder” is meaningless unless you actually know who they talked to and what they tried.

  24. Johanna Says:

    I’ve been told more about the launch than I’m able to share publicly, sorry, and that affects why I think DC should have done things differently.

    As for your other point, I think launching a line of comics aimed at teen girls with so few women’s voices represented is what’s ridiculous, and I don’t need your approval as to what opinions you think are acceptable or “defensible”.

  25. Ryan Day Says:

    Got it. “I know something you don’t know” and “More women, no matter what.”

  26. Johanna Says:

    Well, yes, and I’m sorry you don’t like the way that sounds. (Who would?) I’m not going to violate confidences, but knowing more about the situation may give me a different perspective. And ultimately, it boils down to me wanting adequate representation of women’s voices in a line targeted at teen girls. I don’t think the two editors count sufficiently for me to be happy with the situation, regardless of how much I like the work of the creators who are publishing with them.

  27. Lyle Says:

    As for which creators should have been involved, I still say it’s sad that neither Christine Norrie, Jen Van Meter or Serena Valentino were part of the line’s launch. They’re all great creators with an established following who’s work already have been accepted by teen girls and (IIRC) Van Meter and Norrie have done fill-in work for DC’s superhero books so that bridge doesn’t need to be built.

    As much as timelines make getting talent challenging, DC has been working on this for three years now. With that kind of pipeline, the “available window” argument becomes harder to make.

  28. Mickle Says:

    “As for your other point, I think launching a line of comics aimed at teen girls with so few women’s voices represented is what’s ridiculous”

    It’s also one of the few decision DC has made regarding this line that doesn’t even make sense from a marketing point of view. From a purely marketing point of view, I understand DC’s decision to hire Castellucci over yet another guy, and I even understand (but not sure I agree with) DC’s decision to hire her over lesser known female comics writers. I don’t, however, understand what they were thinking in hiring so few female creators, period.

    If DC is going after the teen (and tween) girls who read Tokyo Mew Mew and The Clique series (which seems to be the case) then the plethora of male names attached to the series is going to be a stumbling block. It’s certainly not insurmountable, but a lot of the girls who read Gossip Girls will pause when they don’t see a “girls” name on a series that they don’t know anything about. They may be very good stories and the bottom line may turn out alright in the end, but it’s one of the few decisions that can’t even be justified by the marketing.

    (Unless the name they picked and the company they teamed up with is mismatched with the kinds of stories they plan on putting out – in which case DC is just plain confused.)

  29. Barry Says:

    “And saying that “if they’d hired more women, they’d have done so out of affirmative action” is a slap in the face of the many talented female comic creators, because it implies that they wouldn’t be able to get work solely on their abilities.”

    That’s not what I said at all. But it seems to be implied by many that DC should have hired women to work on this imprint because they were women and not because they provided what the editors and publisher were looking for. Hence the affirmative action reference.

    Yeah, I’d love to see work by the likes of Chynna Clugston, Colleen Doran, Carla Speed McNeil, Lea, Gabrielle Bell, Julie Docet, Jessica Abel and Megan Kelso (just to name a few of my personal favorite creators, female or otherwise) on this imprint and hopefully they or other creators of their caliber will be a part of what I hope is a very successful line of books. And if not, it’s DC’s decision to make, good or bad. In the end, they’re only one publisher, regardless of their stature as big fishes in this little pond we call comic books.

  30. Langdon Auger Says:

    I don’t know — it seems more than a little premature to start making judgments on this work based on nothing more than the percentage of female creators involved.

    It obvious that this is a favorite topic of complaint for some people (and some people love to complain about it more than others) but wouldn’t it be better (or, at least, more fair) to judge the work based on its’ own merits?

    Why the assumption, sight unseen, that the material will be substandard and unappealing to its’ intended audience?

  31. Johanna Says:

    No one’s assumed that, Langdon. Everyone I’ve seen has said that the creators are good ones and that they’re looking forward to seeing the books. The point is simply that with so many talented female comic creators out there (and more that we don’t know of), that it sends a disturbing message that DC didn’t or couldn’t work with any of them for a line aimed at teen girls.

  32. Langdon Auger Says:

    Why is it so disturbing, though? Why the automatic assumption that only female creators are suited to write for this audience, or that audience? (And please, let’s forego the customary “if you have to ask, you’ll never understand” replies.) I’ve yet to see anyone articulate what the issue is here — all I see are complaints that it’s just not right, that it’s a missed opportunity, etc, etc.

    Why should gender supercede all other qualifications here?

  33. Johanna Says:

    Because the American comic industry has a long and continuing history of sexism. Not hiring women is typical for them, but it’s particularly obvious in this case.

    The assumption, in saying that teen girls may respond better to books written by women, is that a member of an oppressed group is better aware of the shared experiences among members of that group. (Oppressed is a terrible word, but it’s all I can think of right now.) To compare, if you’re pitching graphic novels as particularly good at speaking to gay teens, it behooves you to really understand the experience of gay teens… and that’s easiest and most likely if you’ve BEEN a gay teen. Sure, others can write those stories with a lot of empathy and research… but if your hypothetical gay teen line had only straight writers, it would seem a little, well, queer, wouldn’t it?

  34. Langdon Auger Says:

    So does that mean mainstream comics are all the better for having come to be written mostly by and almost exclusively for the peculiar type of adolescent male fanboy they’re intended for?

    Wouldn’t you rather have a diversity of voices (for lack of a better term) in mainstream comics?

    Why should these books be held to a different standard?

  35. Barry Says:

    Just out of curiosity, I did an amazon.com search for ‘chick lit’. Every single book that showed up was written by a woman.

    So yeah, I’m seeing how the comics industry is (again) more than a wee bit out of step with the rest of the world…

  36. Johanna Says:

    Langdon: It explains why the fan/pro connection is so tight in comics, perhaps, with all the problems that result. All of the sales growth and media interest in comics has come about in spite of, not because of, the superhero genre, which demonstrates how, rather than being “mainstream”, it seems more like an evolutionary dead end. If superhero comics were one small part of a healthy and diverse market, then there would be nothing wrong with them being by boys/for boys.

  37. Langdon Auger Says:

    I feel like you’re dodging the question, though. Wouldn’t mainstream comics be all the better if they weren’t written almost exclusively by one small demographic?

    Isn’t it possible that the Minx books be all the better because they’re not?

  38. Johanna Says:

    I’m afraid you’re missing my point — “mainstream” comics are written by everyone for everyone. Superhero comics aren’t mainstream, as demonstrated by their limited sales to an ever-declining audience.

  39. Langdon Auger Says:

    Then I’ll rephrase the question: Wouldn’t you rather have a diversity of voices (for lack of a better term) in super-hero comics? Wouldn’t they be all the better for it?

    Why should these books (or any other) be held to a different standard?

  40. Johanna Says:

    Personally, I no longer really care what superhero comics do, because they have nothing to say to me anymore. Others, yes, would like to see voices more reflective of themselves. And that’s what makes Minx so odd — the creators don’t reflect at all the target audience. Sticking with the same white men ISN’T a diversity of voices.

  41. Kevin Lighton Says:

    Comparing superhero comics to the Minx line is rather an apples-and-oranges comparison anyway, since the former is defined by genre and the latter by target audience. The value of specific types of diversity to each is thus different.

  42. Langdon Auger Says:

    Superhero comics may be defined by genré — but these days I think they’re just as defined by the target audience (and all for the worse, if you ask me) as the Minx books appear to be.

    Look, Johanna, I agree with the idea that mass market comics on the whole ought to be created by and reach a broader audience — wholeheartedly. But if the your most substantial complaint is that this was a missed opportunity to address some historical wrongdoing, I give up.

    I hope the books do well for DC — with or without an idealized roster of creative talent.

  43. Kevin Lighton Says:

    Superhero comics may be defined by genré — but these days I think they’re just as defined by the target audience (and all for the worse, if you ask me) as the Minx books appear to be.

    The difference is that superhero comics are not necessarily defined by the audience that most of the current titles are targetting, while Minx’s titles are solely defined by the target audience. There wouldn’t be any inherent contradiction in a superhero title in the Minx line (although it seems unlikely that there would be one in the near future).

  44. Lyle Says:

    Wouldn’t you rather have a diversity of voices (for lack of a better term) in super-hero comics? Wouldn’t they be all the better for it?

    Langdon, I believe a lot of the same people bothered by the lack of female creators working on Minx titles have argued in the past that superhero comics would be better if there were greater diversity of talent. That exclusionary viewpoints at the corporate level end up appearing at the retail level, shrining the customer base.

    However, this is a case where the omission is glaring, particularly because of the targeting (and marketing potential) but also because this is a case where inertia is much less of a factor (as with superhero comics).

  45. Johanna Says:

    Langdon, the point is that this is yet another demonstration of the sexism fostered and maintained by DC and Marvel, in that they didn’t hire any female creators. That this is true of a line AIMED at females just makes it more obvious and ironic. I’m sorry you can’t see that.

  46. Barry Says:

    After reading some thoughts on other sites about this, it got me to thinking that while it would be great if a company like DC would publish an all or mostly female-staffed line of books, in the end, I think that’s too much to expect of a corporate entity. For those who really want change, I think the only way to acheive it is to take matters into your own hands. There are plenty of niche publishers out there and there’s no reason a female-owned company that publishes comics aimed at a female audience with an all-female talent roster can’t and shouldn’t exist. I for one would love to see such a thing happen and succeed.

  47. Johanna Says:

    And given the resistance such a line would face in the direct market, if anyone smart started such a thing, it would have to have a terrific business plan and all its ducks in a row.

    I’ve thought about it, but given the intelligent advice I got to publish what you love, the first thing I’d want to start with would be by a guy, so so much for that.

  48. Lyle Says:

    I have to wonder though if there’s enough reason from comic readers to support a comic company with an all-female roster. If you go outside of superheroes, most customers won’t have a hard time finding female perspectives to support, even if you’re looking outside of manga.The frustration and urgency is felt most by superhero fans, who aren’t very likely to be interested in anything outside of the big two.

    That’s not to say there’s no reason to support a comics company thats owned by women, creating comics by women, just that the customers who would support such a venture are likely to overlook that idealism when choosing between Untested Series A and Blue Monday, Nana or Finder. There’s enough out there to justify the “I care more about quality” excuse.

    OTOH, on aspect that seems to fuel YAOI fandom is its “by women for women” tradition.

  49. one diverse comic book nation » Wowsie Wowsie Wonder Woman Says:

    [...] In just those 8 pages, I was simply charmed and then ultimately pissed because I wanted to know more. There’s been so much discussion about DC’s new Minx line, about its name and not having enough women creators and hopes that this line will encourage girls to read superhero comics, so this just seems like a no-brainer to me. If DC were smart, they’d take Pantoja up on her proposal. [...]

  50. Jeffrey Wong Says:

    Actually it may very well be a case of simple mathematics. Something like slightly over 50% of human society are women. And yet for a womens’ line you have less than 15% on the team? In a job that doesn’t demand physical strength, aggression or … well … cojones to do the job? (And this is arguable. I have LIVED with some really strong assertive women)

    It’s almost simple mathematics to see the huge disparity between the percentage of the world’s population and the number of female creators in this particular department of DC. While I wouldn’t expect 50% of the people on this line to be women, I cannot believe that there was so few talent that they couldn’t find maybe 6 creators on a 14 person team. It doesn’t make sense

    What makes even less sense is that this is the company (if i’m not mistaken) that prints Y: The Last Man!! One would think the higher ups were already alive to the issue.

    As a side note we are slight over one century away from a time where it was considered that women were less intelligent and incapable by the medical community as an established fact.

  51. Barry Says:

    While there’s quite a bit of material geared towards women in other forms of media, I still think a comics company that exclusively publishes intelligent, quality content for women could possibly succeed. I don’t think a mainstream hit like Persepolis is an anomaly, as I’ve had more than one conversation with women who were not comics ‘fans’ but who had read and loved the book. This is a niche market that has all sorts of untapped potential and while the going would be rough for a new comics company like this, I don’t think it would be any more so than for other publishers like Oni or AdHouse. Again, I think it could work. It just needs the right people and the right business plan.

  52. one diverse comic book nation » 2006: The Year That Was In Diversity In Comics Says:

    [...] But, more than the name, the fact that only a couple of women creators would be on board for the launch of a line aimed at teenage girls got people talking. Johanna Draper Carlson from Comics Worth Reading asked, “But I can only imagine what the press would do if the Logo channel, targeted at gays, had over 85% of their shows created by straights. Perhaps that’s not a fair example, given that gays already get a lot of Hollywood work, and the same can’t be said about women in comics. How many black creators does BET have? How many black actors are represented on that network? I know Lifetime has a ton of visible females. In short, how do you talk to a target audience if you’re not allowing members of that audience to speak?” [...]

  53. Minx No More: DC Cancels Girls’ GN Line » Comics Worth Reading Says:

    [...] not forget one major issue: the lack of significant female creative contribution, a problem from the [...]

Leave a Comment

Subscribe to comment feed.




Categories:

Pages:



Meta:

Most Recent Posts: