Dissenting comics

For several decades, a movement, or rather a loose body of different movements has existed on the periphery of the comics industry. They have become the hallmark of a glorious era of the ninth art that had previously become mired in esthetic clichés and standardized ways of doing things. These movements beg a number of questions: Do they oppose or influence  the standardized practices of the field? Can we talk of an avant-garde inspired by creative geniuses aware of their historicity, or are we simply dealing with the steady onset of new standards? Are publishers mere merchants, or are they working to affirm a new esthetics? How can we group together these movements which emerged in different historical and artistic contexts? Are they independent, alternative, underground or counter-cultural? In order to tackle these questions, the ACME group has explored the ways in which the more generic idea of dissent can be applied to the comics worlds.

On emerging from its underground status, an “independent” version of  comics gave legitimacy to the ninth art at the end of the 20th century. Authors and editors began to embrace a new esthetics, autobiography, a political and social conscience, new non-standardized formats, a statement of the history of their art, critical essays or the translation of foreign contemporaries. This alternative comics scene has been written about extensively, perhaps even to an overwhelming degree. Between judgments about values and objectivity, external observations and marketing strategies of legitimation, opinions have gradually become locked into a “monstrous whole”, largely misunderstood, which has become the polar opposite of a more traditional system of mass entertainment. And yet, before being grouped under the same banner, independent movements are marked by esthetics, trajectories, descriptions, vague desires and convictions which can be mutually conflicting. A closer look at this vibrant microcosm reveals its arduous journeys, its successes and failures, its leading figures and followers, the commercial strategies that are more or less aware of market constraints etc. Much more than a monolithic structure, ‘independent’ comics seem to be formed from a non-uniform and fluid mass of strong individuals torn between their desire not to be pigeon-holed, and the reality of group survival.

In the essay collection entitled Comics in Dissent, ten articles do justice to this mixed web of different comics that can all too conveniently be grouped under the “independent” banner. This concept of independence is, however, a jaded idea,  one that seems to be adopted by everyone but which is shown to be untenable as you turn the pages of the above work and the realities of the situation are revealed. The volume was  inspired by the international conference “Independent Comics Worldwide” which was organized in November 2011 by the then newly-formed ACME group from the University of Liege. “After our volume ‘L’Association. Une Utopie éditoriale et esthétique’ (2010), this conference was the first scientific manifestation of the ACME group”, recalls Tanguy Habrand, lecturer at the Department of Communication Arts and Sciences of ULg and co-editor of the work. “It involved three days in the presence of researchers and players from the sector. The fact that the ‘comics’ subject was broached at the University of Liege was not revolutionary in itself and reflected a more general tendency, yet this conference was important for the image of the ACME group both within the University of Liege and overseas: it is now accepted that in Liege, there is a group that is not made up of ‘lovers’ or ‘fanatics’ of comics, but rather of researchers drawn from several different departments who wish to promote the development of research into this area”.

“We wanted to open ACME up to a broader more external mode of thinking in order to enrich it”, continues Christophe Dony, who is a lecturer at the Department of Modern Languages and Literature at ULg and co-editor of the work. “We assembled people from different horizons and countries; particularly from the English-speaking world who are familiar not only with the wider culture of  comics but also with the critical debates surrounding the industry. We wanted to become part of this debate. One of the ambitions of the conference was to see how scholars engaged with ‘alternative’ comics in other cultures, to see whether a kind of common denominator existed between different ‘marginal’ productions and practices from different geographical landscapes”. Before the actual publishing of the book, a considerable amount of editing and mature reflection followed the conference. The title of the latter was very much connected to the idea of ‘independence’, which the editors of the volume retrospectively perceived as too loose. “We needed to find a more neutral and universal term which would refer to a more generic idea of rupture”, explains Tanguy Habrand, which is why the editors retained the concept of dissent for the volume.

A plural and bilingual work

On leafing through the pages the reader is treated to a clinical dismantling of the idea of independence. Although the authors are united in the quest to understand the meaning of contemporary comics, each one adopts a different approach. The result is a rupture with the idea of independence which is both surprising and yet coherent given the volume’s broad scope of investigation . While the work is notable for its multi-disciplinary approach, it is particularly through its socio-economic focus relating to the positions taken by both authors and publishing houses that it produces a new vision. “It is quite rare to study editorial structures and this was not our final objective, but it opened up another dynamics in the approach to comics studies. We did not wish to exhaust the debate about the notion of independence but rather to explore it from a new angle so that others would take up the discussion in yet other directions”, the researchers acknowledge.

Ready-made answers to precise questions should not be sought in these pages; instead they yield clarification about an art that has been slow to reach maturity. The varying points of view developed in the book work well to that effect.. The multi-faceted character of the work begins with its bilingual nature; the volume indeed gathers essays in French and English. This approach was necessary since one of the ambitions of the project was to compare how  different countries have engaged with the idea of independence. Privileged observers therefore expressed themselves on American culture in the language of Shakespeare. The contributions of the Dutch-speaking researchers were also expressed in English, with a view to reaching a wider audience.

The international alternative 

The first thing that becomes evident on reading the work is the international character of contemporary comics. From the first article written by Erwin Dejasse(2), the work reaches out to a multitude of sources of comics which extend way beyond the well-known centers of activity in the area (Japan, USA and Franco-Belgian culture). Later on in the book, the texts of Rudi de Vries(3) and Gert Meesters(4) (the last co-editor of the work) also distance themselves from these more established centers of comics production, albeit in different ways and in offering different case-studies. Rudi de Vries illustrates the theories of selection systems by focusing on Joost Swarte, a Dutch artist who is also the co-founder of an influential publishing house, Oog & Blik. By retracing the international trajectory of this famous figure from the Dutch comics industry, the critic shows how an artist can influence and change an artistic environment in order to preserve a certain level of independence. By imposing his work and taking a critical look at it, and by participating in numerous collaborations, Joost Swarte, de Vries argues, has been able to modify different systems of selection  insofar as he has managed to have the market, peers, and experts  accept his work and style.  

Gert Meesters, for his part, focuses on two modest and independent Flemish publishing houses, Bries and Oogachtend. He reveals very marked individual characteristics that are their driving force: the affirmation of a very assertive character and a very subjective and rigorous appreciation with regard to the works both publishers choose to defend. After establishing a series of similarities between the two structures, the researcher notices that Bries and Oogachtend  present very different editorial positions and very different ways of constructing a catalogue and circulating it, sometimes flirting with  artisanal techniques. 

The individual, the school and the school effect

Are esthetics- or art-driven comics not an individual affair after all? This is one of the questions asked in the work, particularly by Erwin Dejasse. The researcher from Liege writes that, “Alternative comics cannot easily be defined precisely because they resist pre-formatted identity patterns and pre-established movements or categories. If anything, alternative comics are first and foremost the expression of an artist’s singularity”(5). On the contrary, the comics industry conforms to ironcast standards with regard to subject matter, narration, graphics, series logic and format (e.g. the 48-pagehard back ‘album’ in Franco-Belgian culture), etc.  

And yet, alternative comics have also experienced some form of standardization. The graphic novel, for example, has developed itself in adapting and cherishing particular genres, narrative techniques and esthetic styles, including introversion as subject matter, autobiography, social conscience through reporting, the use of black and white, a format reminiscent of the novel and a number of pages often in excess of one-hundred. By wanting to free themselves from all the standards, the most influential alternative figures have in turn also defined new standards as Tanguy Habrand explains. “Esthetics- and art-driven comics undoubtedly reflect the expression of a creator’s singularity. This means that, ideally, each author is offering something different. It is an idea that has to do with inner expression and with creative genius. But it must be said that “good ways” of being alternative have emerged through the process of legitimation that certain authors or certain publishing houses have championed. There is also an entire socio-economic dimension which explains phenomena of group formation. Communities of authors have been seen to appear and to unite not only to lay claim to a group esthetic label, but also because it was the only way for them to organize and to avail of production tools in some way”.

Christophe Dony continues to illustrate that these communities have not always had much choice when faced by an efficient entertainment industry. “Keeping a distance from others is one thing but it is easier to make oneself heard through group dissidence. As was the case with the various punk movements, a certain culture of enthusiasm has led several artists to join forces in order to better rule, paradoxically. The creation of groups has, for example, enabled some to affirm themselves more easily while creating an added value for better recognition”. What would the use of a desire to be alternative be if it could not be understood or could not guarantee a relative permanence? Comics remain a marketable product and must fulfil objectives as trivial as those demanded by the market. Moreover, this market is often saturated, which means that structures that are too small cannot survive.

Although these more economic imperatives are constantly evoked in the essay collection, they are the main concerns of the last contributions. For example, having demonstrated the shameful and derisory relationship that Futuropolis had with the calculating and rational aspects of the comics business, Benoît Berthou(6) recalls a happy experience in the history of alternative and independent comics, namely that of the Comptoir des Indépendants. This is an organization which mutualized the circulation of independent publishing houses and which wanted to create a new relationship with the bookshops in terms of circulation. The Comptoir gathered together the most influential publishing houses in the Franco-Belgian field from 1999 to 2011 when it ceased its activities. In so doing, the Comptoir  demonstrated that, after all, in order to exist, publishing houses were not obliged to depend on large distribution organisations. “Mechanisms of cooperation appeared in all the links of the book chain, explains Tanguy Habrand, with profits being sometimes higher than for those who suggested more traditional strategies. For example, at the time when publishing houses such as L’Association were formed, many authors struggled to be published.  Their work did not interest the existing structures; they had to create their own. In the beginning, this seemed indistinguishable from self-publishing, a practice which has negative connotations. These self-publishers were seen as ‘losers’, as those ‘who fell by the wayside’. But very quickly, they published other authors and translated foreign works which led to the formation of a relevant group and the symbolic revolution it seemed to represent made it easy to forget that, in the beginning, it was self-publishing”.  

Independent versus alternative

Finally, the concept of independence hides a number of different aspects and does not really say much about the nature of a work. This is because independence can first and foremost be artistic and/or political and can take an opposing view to what is being done. At the same time, it participates in the creation of a school effect and perhaps even a fashion effect. It can be economic but, once again, the idea does not hold up to scrutiny because a form of rigorous marketing is to a greater or lesser degree  a condition of  survival in a competitive publishing environment. Some prefer the concept of being alternative to being independent. The former term tolerates the relative adoption of a system of commercial marketing and the establishment of new structure-led genres followed by a new school of authors. It makes it possible to take account of the fact that a series of authors, at different moments, were able to break away from a standard followed by the majority.

Tanguy Habrand’s contribution qualifies this semantic approach. The alternative, according to the author, also covers qualitative and avant-garde dimensions, and creates effects of belonging and exclusion. The use of the term alternative separates the mainstream from what is good and brings a certain idea of discrimination with it. It is therefore not self-evident either: “The use of such terms leads to a confusion of roles: the researcher transforms himself into a critic and only retains a tiny part of the actual state of otherness”.(7)  As a balance, the researcher suggests an approach through the different uses of the term ‘independent’ in order to scientifically rehabilitate it in some way; however, he also underlines the fact that the notion of independence takes on a qualitative use from which it is necessary to become detached or  - failing this - to at least become aware of. From here, the independent label can be used to categorise some recognizable approaches which mark adhesion to an institution while at the same time distance themesevles from it, especially with regard to the structure of a publishing house, its catalogue and the way of marketing the latter, or the way a publishing house adopts a work ethic which distinguishes it from the others. For Tanguy Habrand, independent publishing is caught between an industrial market locked into its unique quest for profit and a more subversive alternative; independent publishing is to be placed somewhere between the two, “It is not a question of creating counter-culture but of expressing one’s culture with means that are free from clichés, of expressing it within culture not on the margins (…). (Independent publishing) playing the game in order to better subvert it. Put in other words, any declaration of independence implies adherence to an institution on the part of the one who makes the declaration”.(8)

Between two stools: the alternatives to the alternative

Other contributions to the work, notably through the text of Christophe Dony(9), qualify the polarisation of independence against industry, this time by the mutual influence they end up having. “The market has evolved so that the traditionally acknowledged concept of big and small publishers does not seem quite right to me anymore. Historically, the different movements and actions of dissidence, in its broader acceptance, have inevitably given rise to an explosion with regard to structures and style”. A comics specialist himself, Dony applies his premise to a precise example, that of the American label Vertigo. Vertigo depends directly on the giant DC Comics, which itself belongs to the conglomerate Time Warner. Initially, Vertigo was created by DC Comics to compile the first more ‘mature’ and ‘sophisticated’ titles published by the house. Soon enough, however, the label developed other esthetics and storytelling techniques that were on the margins of the norm that DC championed.. . 

Initially disparaged by both alternative and mainstream fans, Vertigo finally succeeded in occupying a hybrid place while affirming its distance from the mainstream and alternative poles of the comics field, albeit in a very ironic way and by developing what the author calls a double awareness. “Once again, this angle refers to a specific culture in a particular historical context. But Vertigo presents a case where the actors define themselves automatically as being in the middle and are not afraid to make fun of everyone. They redefine their editorial position by borrowing from alternative currents and rewriting the lines of mainstream comics which are too easy and directing. This strong editorial policy is undoubtedly one of the reasons that explain why Vertigo has succeeded in lasting as the only imprint belonging to a larger mainstream conglomerate.. This project has enabled a new possibility, however. In the wake of the label, new independent publishers have, for example, seen the light of day by tying both ends of the comics spectrum together. Vertigo is for me one of the main actors which enabled comics in the US to diversify since the advent of so-called alternative comics. Nevertheless, the label remains financially dependent on a bigger group within which comics is not the most lucrative activity. It is therefore not immune to restructuring policies linked to the performance of DC Entertainment and, more broadly, Time Warner”.

Financial difficulties remain one of the aspects that link all these actors who sometimes need to find alternatives to their alternatives. The volume’s last contribution illustrates this perfectly. In the collection’s concluding essay, Thierry Groensteen, accounts for his tumultuous editorial career as a publisher(10). He recounts how he founded his publishing house “Éditions de l’An 2” in 2002, which he managed for four years during which he developed a unique, strict and rigorous editorial line. With this structure, Groensteen explains that he published numerous comics in colour, wrote complex essays on the medium and translated the work of many foreign authors. Unable to keep his publishing house afloat, however, he threw in the towel at the end of 2006. The company was then bought by the group Actes Sud in 2007, after which Groensteen continued his activity as a publisher by managing l’An 2 as a series within this larger publishing group. “Thierry Groensteen founded his own publishing house ten years after the creation of L’Association”, comments Tanguy Habrand. “When he speaks about alternatives to the alternatives, he is applying the idea that it is possible to innovate without echoing values that are being consecrated. This is not without its risks. His work of discovery, translation and creation of a critical apparatus required large sums of money. He tried the experience of joining a bigger group with all that that entails in terms of advantages and disadvantages. This trajectory is quite common in literary publishing. It is a lot rarer in terms of comics publishing”. Christophe Dony continues, “In the US smaller structures are often bought by bigger publishing houses. But during this process they no longer have any rights over their catalogue which can result in the disappearance of the unique characters and universes they created. This is why catalogues originally created by smaller publishers eventually disappear  within the new group, despite the fact that the purchasing company wants to develop the characters for which it has just bought the rights”.  

Dissidence is not always avant-garde

The publishing houses l’An 2 and Vertigo experienced two situations that are unique and exceptional. At the same time however, they echo the fate of other artists and structures whose disparate experiences make it hard for the scholar to bring them together  and examine them trhough a particular critical lens. The idea of dissent is after all overflowing, plural, and continuously evolving. Christophe Dony had the pleasure of noticing how possible new forms of dissent currently emerge even within Marvel and DC Comics. Although these publishing houses are conventionally associated with the mainstream,  some authors working for the ‘big two’ are today rising up against the ways in which other-media adaptations of licensed characters from Marvel and DC have reasserted an over-pronounced Manichaeism or have simplified the ‘multiverses’ of the publishing houses that many artists have worked for over the years. . While some speak of dissidence as being avant-garde, the authors of the work avoid falling into the same trap. The affirmation of this avant-gardism is past and is a marketing effect: a way of constructing a story. From a certain viewpoint it is useful to lay claim to being avant-garde when one does not have media success, but some of the most extreme representatives of these movements will one day join the ranks of the intermediate publishing houses. This will be due (among other things) to selection processes and institutionalization by value judgments which the academic world seems to distance itself from even while recognizing its effects in its work and criticism. Without being the dominant forces of tomorrow, dissident voices are raised every day and always in reaction to new situations. Dissidence is a moving target and therefore redefines itself constantly. 

(1) Christophe Dony, Tanguy Habrand, Gert Meesters (éditeurs), et al., Comics in Dissent, Alternative, Independence, Self-Publishing, Presses Universitaires de Liège, Collection ACME, 2014

(2)Ibid, Erwin Dejasse, Le regard cosmopolite et rétrospectif de la bande dessinée alternative
(3) Ibid, Rudi De Vries, Balancing on the « Clear Line : » Between Selecting and Being Selected, Independent Comics Publishing in the Netherlands : The Case of Joost Swarte and Oog & Blik
(4) Ibid, Gert Meesters, The Reincarnation of Independent Comics Publishing in Flanders in the 21st Century : Bries and Oogachtend as Deceivingly Similar Cases
(5) Ibid, page 39.

(6) Ibid, Benoît Berhou, Pour une autre commercialisation de la bande dessinée : Étude sur ‘La Gazette’ du ‘Comptoir des Indépendants.
(7)Ibid, Tanguy Habrand, Les Indépendants de la bande dessinée: Entre édition établie et édition sauvage, page 50
(8) Ibid, page 54
(9) Ibid, Christophe Dony, Reassessing the Mainstream vs. Alternative/Independent Dichotomy or, the Double Awareness of the Vertigo Imprint

(10) Ibid, Thierry Groensteen, De l’An 2 à Actes Sud, une alternative à l’alternative, Témoignage d’un éditeur