I wouldn’t read too much into Gail’s commentary, and I definitely wouldn’t call her or Brian “desperate” either. Both of them are hard-working individuals who are more than happy to engage in discussion about their works and share their opinions on a variety of topics, but sales figures seem to be something that bothers them both, and I can’t say that I really blame them, as the numbers here (accurate or not) tend to paint a pretty gloomy picture.

To be honest, I think that the entire scene has changed considerably over the past ten years when you consider the much larger presence of the internet. Online media allows for legal and illegal downloads (many of which will be impossible to track once the iPad really starts to take off) and then there’s the online bookstores like amazon, barnes and nobles, and chapters, etc, which provide for discounted rates on collections that are likely providing a much, much larger share of the market than they ever have before.

I read these stats because, to be honest, I like seeing where things fall into place, even if I feel that the numbers may be off by as much as, say, 10 or 20 thousand copies each month.

“You just get the feeling reading their comments that all their books are about to be canceled and they’re worried they’re not going to have any more work.”

Not that Gail or Brian need any help from me articulating their view points, but for the record, I think it’s perfectly plausible — and fair game — to dismiss or criticize the column on the grounds that the numbers are “not correct” or that my interpretation of the numbers is unsound or unfair or otherwise inappropriate.

I don’t particularly agree with those concerns, obviously, but I can see why they exist.

Diamond posts the pre-order sales numbers, which you know to be incorrect, and Marc analyzes them. Is it his comments you take issue with? Because it always seems like you’re taking issues with the numbers themselves, and the fact that they are incorrect. Wouldn’t any analysis of these numbers be misleading and make your books appear to sell poorer than they actually do?

If your problem is with the method in which these numbers are circulated, I don’t think your issue is with Marc. If it’s with Marc’s comments, then you’ve obviously come to the right place. I’m having an awful time telling which is the actual problem because your comments have always bundled the two together so tightly.

And Gail, I personally enjoy these columns because I like statistics, comics, and Marc’s writing style. I don’t see the need to come here and ask why people like reading these. I’ve seen many books by you (and Brian) that I’ve purchased rank lower on the charts than I would have hoped, and my reaction was to support your careers by continuing to purchase your books and ask friends to do the same. Isn’t that ideally the result you would want from charts like these?

But I gotta say, it reeks of desperation. You just get the feeling reading their comments that all their books are about to be canceled and they’re worried they’re not going to have any more work.

I say this with love; I love comic books and want there to be so many more of them written. I want Gail Simone to write like five books a month, because she is an awesome writer. I want Brian Wood to be free to pursue his creative vision because it’s obvious to me, even though I don’t read his stuff, that he’s got a unique voice and loads of interesting ideas.

But that’s not the world we’ve got. In this world, there’s only so many comics fans. Even those of us who are saying dumb things, we’re not your problem, Brian and Gail. We’re buying comic books, including yours sometimes. The problem is the millions of people who like action/adventure/superhero stories but who’d never go near a comic book.

Sorry if we make you mad with our attempts to understand how much longer we can expect to enjoy this slumping industry. We’re just trying to see how much longer the party’s going to last.

Here’s to a post-recession comic book renaissance, and 100+ more issues of Secret Six!

“you frequently make comments which at the least imply that a book’s decreased sales is due to its low or decreasing quality, or relevance, or some other quantity.”

That’s a very general description, and there’s a gaping chasm between “quality, or relevance, or some other quantity.”

Making comments that imply a book’s decreased sales are due to its “decreasing relevance or some other quantity” is what the column is for.

“This on top of the fact that you often find qualifiers for the success of books you clearly feel to be of low quality (Blackest Night comes to mind, not that I blame you at all).”

Can you point me to one such qualifier from something I wrote, just so I get a better idea of what you’re objecting to?

“What really strikes me is that I’ve never seen you make a positive comment about the quality of a book which is selling poorly, or less than it was previously.”

A positive comment based a book’s critical merits? Again, that’s not what the column is for. I’ve got a blog where I review comics, including low-selling ones.

A positive comment based on the fact that a book doesn’t sell as well as I expected it to? That shouldn’t be a positive comment in a column focusing on sales, from where I’m standing.

Well, Marc, I really think Gail has a point here; it seems that you in fact quite frequently make editorial comments on the quality, assumed or otherwise, of the books on the list. Of course, you have every right to do so, but I feel that the way you go about it is intellectually dishonest. For one thing, you refuse to acknowledge that this is what you’re doing, but for another, you frequently make comments which at the least imply that a book’s decreased sales is due to its low or decreasing quality, or relevance, or some other quantity. This on top of the fact that you often find qualifiers for the success of books you clearly feel to be of low quality (Blackest Night comes to mind, not that I blame you at all). What really strikes me is that I’ve never seen you make a positive comment about the quality of a book which is selling poorly, or less than it was previously. It seems like you live in a world where low sales is a judgment against a book’s quality, but high sales is not a positive indicator of its quality. This combination of attitudes results in the “pervasive negativity” that some decry.

Personally, I agree with the idea that quality and sales have almost no relationship with each other, and I’m always suspicious when any analyst tries to start blurring the lines between the two… which is, sadly, almost all of the time.

“I’d like to second ykw’s note that BIRDS OF PREY is still being stubbornly lumped in with SIRENS when they’re two separate series, and I’m going to be very curious how M-O handles this when BOP returns to charts.”

Well, I’ll probably just switch the long-term comparisons over, or keep the old BoP series as a point of reference for both books.

It’s not like those comparisons are any definitive statement; they’re context, and they can change at any given month, depending on what seems to be the most significant context for a given number in a given month.

“I don’t mind supplying this correct info when it seems sensible to, but you know that most of the time I do that you just try and find a reason to discount it.”

I disagree with that, for what it’s worth.

Also, I’d like to point out that the information you’ve been providing mostly SUPPORTS and CORROBORATES the Diamond figures, actually, to the extent the two sets are comparable at all.

As I’m sure I’ve said before, your royalty statements don’t report the same things as the Diamond figures do, so I’m not sure what you’d like me to do with your information that I’m not already doing.

* you want to know which poorly selling books you should hype the most
* you want to know which well selling books you can relax with
* the charts serve as a reasonably good unbiased roundup on pretty much all the books currently being published by Marvel/DC, so that you can become interested in books that don’t have big hype
* movie box offices are also being followed by people without it being “creepy”

I’d like to second ykw’s note that BIRDS OF PREY is still being stubbornly lumped in with SIRENS when they’re two separate series, and I’m going to be very curious how M-O handles this when BOP returns to charts. Will he keep BOP in with both SIRENS and BOPv2 on both their charts, insisting that he did no wrong in lumping it together with SIRENS? Or will he admit his mistake like a man and remove it from SIRENS and put BOPv1 where it belongs, with BOPv2.

I think a big reason why you say this, why you are forced to ‘read tea leaves’ and otherwise make partially-educated guesses is because the numbers that are publicly available are incomplete (as we all know). Months and months later, as I get my royalty statements in the mail, the picture becomes much clearer, which is why your at-the-moment assumptions chafe so much. Because I know exactly how wrong you are.

I don’t mind supplying this correct info when it seems sensible to, but you know that most of the time I do that you just try and find a reason to discount it.

brian w