Oni editor James Lucas Jones throws another label into the mix, talking about “the real mainstream” in an interview at Newsarama:
“Really, when you look at it, there aren’t a whole lot of comic companies that embrace the actual ‘mainstream.’ Oni’s output is considered, by and large, to be the indy fringe in comics – within the direct market. It’s not the superhero stuff, but at the same time, it’s what would be considered the mainstream in every other entertainment medium… Comics mainstream needs to get in line with what the rest of the world acknowledges as the mainstream. At Oni, we really feel like we’re pushing the real mainstream on the comics populace.”
It’s a tag that manages to be both accurate and, at least in my opinion, kind of annoying. It’s accurate because Oni, of all the North American comic publishers, manages to encompass the widest range of genres in its output, and that’s a very worthy thing indeed. It’s kind of annoying to me in a very specific way, the “it’s good for you” argument that adopts a position of relative virtue. I say this as someone who’s enjoyed every Oni book I’ve ever read, so it isn’t a comment on the quality of their output. I just tend to find myself a bit repelled when marketing incorporates the implication of a moral imperative.
I can’t really argue with Jones on this point:
“Oni’s output would include the romantic comedy that would gross $30 million on an opening weekend. It would be the cult teen flick like Napoleon Dynamite that just plays forever and has repeat viewing after repeat viewing. But because they’re comics, the subject matter is marginalized and pushed to the side, because ‘that’s not what comics do – comics are for big, splashy superhero stories.’”
At the same time, I think the comics direct market was built around the super-hero genre because comics serve that genre uniquely well. Romance, comedy, coming-of-age stories, spy thrillers, crime dramas, and other material are all fairly transportable. They fit comfortably in novels, movies, television series, what have you. They fit in comics, too, but for super-hero stories, the best, most reliable source has always been comics. Branching into other media has decidedly mixed results, or at least decidedly mixed fan reaction. If Oni wants to gentrify the direct market ghetto, more power to them, but it’s worthwhile to understand how the ghetto developed in the first place, I think.
I really admire Oni’s philosophy on manga:
“We’re not trying to replace manga by any means – we’re trying to show people that there is material that’s created in North America that’s just as valid and just as entertaining, and just as suited to what they’re looking for as the Japanese stuff they’re looking at. Which doesn’t mean that we’re forcing everyone into manga storytelling – we’re still doing things the way we do them. Our approach hasn’t changed- we were kind of already in line with that mindset of not being restricted by genre, and not trying to keep people from doing what they want to do because it doesn’t fit the mold of whatever popular trend is going on in the comics industry.”
It highlights one of the most significant similarities I find between Oni’s titles and the best manga: both have a creator-driven approach. With Marvel or DC, there will always be titles with Superman and Spider-Man, because the characters take supremacy. That’s the product, and it ultimately doesn’t matter too much who’s writing it this year, because the publishers have brands to protect and licenses to support. At Oni, at least in my impression, if Andi Watson doesn’t feel like writing “Love Fights,” or Greg Rucka takes a break from “Queen and Country,” you won’t pick it up next month to find that someone else has taken over. There’s a specific vision at work in each title, and that can have very rewarding results.
(And while I know some wonder about the wisdom of sorting product by size — mixing in digest-sized western comics with manga — I think this kind of shelving practice would serve Oni really, really well. The manga audience is much more likely to be receptive to its product than someone skimming through Marvel’s Essentials line. Not that those are mutually exclusive audiences, either, but from a sales standpoint, it strikes me as a clearer advantage.)
There’s tons of interesting stuff in the article — the role of the trade paperback, the rise of the original graphic novel, cracking the bookstore market, a pitch for retailer support (and I’d love to know what retailers think about the onus that pitch seems to put on them). There are also previews of upcoming projects, and I’m looking forward to trying them. (For a great series of reviews on Oni’s titles, check out The Hurting and search under “Oni Love.”)
James Schee at Reading Along noted some oddness in the formatting of the article, and I found myself feeling the same. It almost seems like an opinion piece from Jones that’s been broken down into an interview/article. There’s no byline on the piece that I can see, so I wonder if it isn’t just extremely smart Oni PR? Not that there’s anything wrong with that.