What did more damage to the comics scene, the Comics Code Authority or Diamond?
Both caused a great deal of damage to their respective scenes, but in the overall course of comics history it would have to be Diamond due to the CCA's strict policies forcing writers to adapt to the limitations while still being able to create engaging stories, thus resulting in the Silver Age of Comics.
Diamond hasn't done shit for comics.
Censorship doesn't spur creativity, it supresses it.
And any monopoly will eventually destroy any healthy marketplace.
If there's never any anti-trust action it will be Diamond that does more damage, after all inherent in a monopoly's optional power over a marketplace is the supression and thus censorship of some materials. It's a two-fer.
If the internet is to believed, the antitrust hearings on Diamond failed because a monpoly on comic books is fine as long as it's not a monopoly on all books
Better hope digital grows and grows fast!
Yes, the therad about the effects of American comic book policies is primarily focused on the effects they had on the comic book industry in America. Shocking isn't it?
Comixology and the apps of the various publishers. You can even download comics on Kindle. It's hard to tell how successful digital sales are, though, because nobody releases the numbers.
If only they would stop trying to sell digital copies at practically the same price as real physical copies that you can read during blackouts and resell to reclaim some of your money when you tire of them.
It works for Diamond and Marvel/DC. Making comics good or popular isn't relevant to the economic model Diamond offered Marvel/DC in the first place, which is something the two of them very much like about it.
But they won't call it that.
They'll call it "good editing" or "keeping things in mind."
But it's never, ever censorship for them. Fucking vermin, these people. Holy shit.
diamond are the only distributors of funny books not only in America but most of the English speaking world, they force comic stores to order a certain amount and put strict rules on who can order what.
>resell to reclaim some of your money when you tire of them.
Which is precisely what they want to kill. It's like the video game industry. Suddenly corporations have it in their head that the second hand market is akin to theft and lost sales.
Well, technically it's been an idea they've all held for decades and decades, but not they have a nice and clean way of pushing that agenda, and the push back just isn't strong enough.
The Comics Code Authority, because it handled the censorship so badly that the backlash allowed the modern age's bloodthirsty anti-censorship fanatics to exist, and use "free speech" as an excuse to protect their insane agendas from any criticism while using the same excuse to bully critics they disagree with in hopes of censoring them.
That probably wasn't the only factor in the creation of the current "objective reality is evil censoring oppression" dogma, but it was definitely a strong contributing factor.
CCA's specific policies would be pretty hated. Remember, this was a bunch that got that Sci-Fi comic shitcanned for writing a story because it featured a black astronaut.
>They'll call it "good editing" or "keeping things in mind."
Because that's literally what it is. What certain extremists describe as "censorship", common language refers to as "thinking", but the anti-censorship crusade has such a nonsensically broad definition of "censorship" that you can earn their ire for as little as having an opinion on an artistic work.
I suppose theyre opposed to "keeping things in mind" because they'd prefer that people keep things OUT of mind, to stop criminal thoughts from occurring, or "crimestop" for short. One would think that this would defeat the entire purpose of free speech, but the anti-censorship crusade has such a nonsensically narrow definition of "censorship" that it explicitly doesn't include bullying and harassing people who say or think certain things with the stated goal of making them STOP saying or thinking those things.
>If only they would stop trying to sell digital copies at practically the same price as real physical copies
They can't as long as Diamond is around. Diamond has told publishers that if they sell day and date digital cheaper than physical, then it would be undercutting the LCS/DM sales. If you want to have your comics in a LCS, then you can't sell digital cheaper than physical and frankly, I doubt cheaper digital comics would be able to offset the loss of revenue that no longer being part of the direct market would cause.
Maybe within the comics fandom, but that mentality you're talking about is pretty pervasive with many hobbies these days. Hell, it's a much bigger problem with video games from what I've seen. The CCA just gives them an excuse when talking about comics, but even if the CCA never existed, they'd just find some other excuse to justify their warped definition of censorship for the sake of pushing an agenda.
It's hardly the CCA of the 50s' fault that idiots of the 10s warp the english language to fit their needs.
Different mechanisms with the same effect. They both ghettoized comics readership, which inculcated the tribalist bro culture that feminism is currently dismantling.
I preferred the ghetto.
Diamond has a legal monopoly on the industry. They were taken to court and the official ruling as that they are indeed a monopoly, but since it's a monopoly only on comics distribution and not all books, it's OK. Basically, Diamond is allowed to get away with it because "lolcomics."
You either play ball or don't play at all. If Diamond goes down, they'll be sure to drag everyone else down with them.
Marvel and DC belong to big players. At worst Diamond will drag down the all the dumb comic shops that have been paying their idiot's fee for years now and Image+Dark Horse.
As much as I hate to say it, it was probably Jim Shooter. He's the one that introduced the concept of the direct market to publishers. He intended for the direct market to have a joint relationship with newstands as a way to introduce a reader to the other, but the corporate executives got greedy and got rid of newstand publishing entirely
>nonsensically broad definition
>nonsensically narrow definition
Which is it tumblr?