Our guest this week is noted comics author and commentator, as well as best selling author Peter David. David’s comics work currently includes CAPTAIN MARVEL, from Marvel Comics, and SUPERGIRL and YOUNG JUSTICE from DC. He has an upcoming SPYBOY special from Dark Horse, along with a HULK: THE END special from Marvel Comics. His Claypool Comics series, SOULSEARCHERS AND COMPANY, is about to hit issue 50, even though people always seem to forget about it.

David is also a best selling novelist, and May will see the release of his adaptation of the Spider-Man motion picture. A revised version of his popular KNIGHT LIFE novel will hit the stands in June, followed by a paperback version of SIR APROPOS OF NOTHING in July and a sequel to that title, THE WOAD TO WUIN, in August.

If we tried to go over his TV and movie credits as well, we’d run out of space.

Peter is answering questions from SAVANT E-I-C Dave Potter, SAVANT Editor Gus Dahlberg, and Staff Writer Alasdair Stuart.

DAVE: Well, right off the bat-the public exchange of letters between you and Marvel EIC Joe Quesada (who worked with you on Marvel's X-FACTOR in the nineties)-how do you feel about it now, after the fact? Did you think it wound up being embarrassing to the two of you at all? Or, even if it did, do you view the net effect as a positive one for your comics work?

PETER: For me it turned out to be educational. I modeled the tone and style of my initial column on the tone and style of Marvel's top administration people...and was fascinated to see how put-off they were. I'd love to know if that awareness is going to inform any further publicity moves on their part. As for embarrassing, whenever one embarks on any course of action involving the public, you're always going to get a mixed bag of responses. Overall I'd say it was worth it, because the vast majority of the reaction I've gotten has been pretty positive. I mean, you'd think it would be tough for fans to have a negative response to an offer designed to save them money, wouldn't you (although some did indeed manage it.) What sort of long-term effect it will have, I don't really know.

DAVE: Do you think the exchange has at all damaged your relationship with Marvel?

PETER: It's had an impact, I'm sure. Whether positive or negative, only the long term can tell. Although I look at it this way: Let's say they tell me never to darken their door again. Well, y'know what? In the history of Marvel Comics, no one was more fired than Jim Shooter. When he was fired, Jim Shooter was SO fired that his ancestors were unemployed. And he was asked back. So, y'know...la de dah.

DAVE: One topic that came out of the public letter exchange was the notion that, if a book isn't selling well, a lot of that rests squarely on the shoulders of the creator. Obviously, you and the rest of the creative team set out to make the best book possible, so how do you, as a writer look back on what you've done with a critical eye toward improving future stories?

PETER: Well, the thing is, I might well have made many of the same choices even if I had it to do over again. Cosmic-epic books tend to tank, but I did fine with HULK for over a decade, so that--plus familiarity with the character--naturally prompted me to focus on Rick. I might well have toned down the humor somewhat, although now that I think about it, part of what makes humor in a comic so noticeable is that there's so many comics that have NO humor at all. Put a few jokes in, and suddenly it's "light." But as I pointed out, retailers whacked down orders on the first several issues by nearly 20,000, before issue #1 had even come out. So that makes one wonder just how much effect the creative team can have, unless it's a creator with a guaranteed huge fan base like a Kevin Smith. The simple fact is that if I had written the exact same "Green Arrow" story, word for word, it'd be selling in the low 20s, if that.

Based on fan input, I was already planning to make some changes...pull back on the humor a bit (focus more on character driven rather than situation humor), and also develop some Captain Marvel-driven storylines...not to mention some more emphasis on Moondragon as well. My concern was that people would be discouraged from checking them out based on (a) increased price and (b) perceived imminent cancellation.

GUS: Is it possible that CAPTAIN MARVEL simply isn't a concept, however inventive and craftily done, that's going to sell well? What's the point of the book? At least with HULK, there's a very clear, very distinct subtext that anyone can easily understand: the inner conflict between man and monster. The same can't necessarily be said for CAPTAIN MARVEL.

PETER: The hook on Captain Marvel is that it's a cosmic buddy book involving two guys, both of whom are associated with heroes, trying to live up to a heroic ideal that neither is completely comfortable with. The balancing act I have to walk with the book is that if I make it TOO cosmic, it's going to tank. Look at the track record: Silver Surfer, Guardians of the Galaxy, Warlock, Quasar, on and on. Every Marvel cosmic book goes under. So I try to keep the book with deliberate ties to earth. The trick is getting the people who are turned off by cosmic adventures (which seems to be the majority of readers, judging by the lack of sales success) to realize that this book will be of interest to them, while at the same time keeping the readers who like cosmic stuff happy. Is it possible that it may never sell well? Sure it's possible. But my job isn't to come up with reasons as to why it'll never sell; my job is to overcome that.

GUS: Your work tends to be steeped heavily in past continuity; what then do you consider your readership or fanbase to be? Do you see your readers as being familiar with the history of these characters, or do they tend to be new to the material?

PETER: It seems only recently that past continuity is being deemed something or unwanted. That puzzles me. To me, the Marvel Universe is a vast, rich tapestry; it's madness not to take advantage of that, provided it can be done so in a way that's interesting for the new readers. It's odd to have, on the one hand, fans providing a laundry list of characters they'd like to see stretching back decades, and on the other hand being criticized for utilizing past events. Many people seem to have utterly missed the purpose of "Time Flies," for instance, which was set against the future histories of 2099 and "Future Imperfect." They seem to think it was some sort of big in-joke for current readers. No. The simple fact is that Spidey 2099 was the biggest selling book I ever wrote, and more people read Hulk than are reading Captain Marvel. So I was hoping to attract the attention of those readers of other material of mine who aren't presently picking up CM.

I mean, heck, I could cause a sales spike by having Wolverine guest star for an issue. My intent, though, was to do something that would take four issues and hopefully change some ordering patterns. Unfortunately, since no one really knew about it, and 28 and 29 came out the same month (causing retailers, incredibly, to order less of 29 than 28) that didn't exactly work. I have heard from readers who came aboard because they found out Spidey 2099 was in it. I also heard from people who learned of Spidey 2099 being in CM and couldn't find the book in their stores. There's only so much you can do.

GUS: What's the target age of something like CAPTAIN MARVEL or SUPERGIRL, and how does that affect the sales performance of a book?

PETER: Teens and up. How does it affect sales performance? Well, I dunno...sales are highest on Young Justice, which skews younger. You just go for whatever audience you can get.

DAVE: The normal cycle we see for the sales of a book now is that a title launches or gets a new creator, orders spike up from retailers, and then dwindle down until the title is either cancelled or the creators replaced. Books increasing readership over a length of time doesn't seem to happen. Is this an acceptable state for the business to be in? What can publishers and creators be doing to counteract it?

PETER: Well, it's certainly problematic. Part of the difficulty is that, nowadays, retailers are so happy to sell out of a title that they order the exact same number of copies the following month. The only way books have of increasing readership is for buyers to add titles to their pull lists. In terms of publishers, they could overship on titles they feel need more attention, or offer percentages of the initial orders on a returnable basis in order to encourage retailers to gamble on the title. They could also feed sales numbers to the creators so we can see if sales are starting to drop so we can retool what we're doing. You want to know when I saw that HULK sales were dropping? Find any issue of HULK where he underwent a major physical/personality change and count backwards four months. What else can creators do? I dunno...openly challenge the guys who run the companies?

DAVE: You were once worked in the Marvel sales department, a long long time ago when the world was young. Does the sales model that exists today…was that the norm back then too? What did publishers do differently to ensure the long term health of a book, so it could find its audience and grow? It seems like a lot of books from the late 70s and 80s got a much longer commitment from the major publishers.

PETER: At that time, the publishers weren't so entirely dependent on the direct sales market. It's really somewhat ironic. Once upon a time, the newsstand was the sole means of sales. And publishers would put out books on a returnable basis, and then cancel the title six months or so down the line...and six months after the book was cancelled, they'd start getting sales reports, discover very low returns, and realize that they'd just canceled profitable books. The direct market was supposed to counter that. Two problems: First, we now depend almost entirely on the direct market, and second, retailers have to order so grotesquely far in advance that they automatically whack down their orders and books are effectively rendered unprofitable before they ship. Also there used to be dozens of regional warehouses which enabled retailers to have almost instantaneous access to reorders. That doesn't exist anymore. It's as if the positive and supportive aspects of the direct sales market have been ruthlessly stripped away, leaving only the drawbacks. Once upon a time, if we had low draws on a title that we thought the retailers had missed the boat on, I'd work the phones, called our eighteen distributors, and pump up advance reorders. Those calls alone would put several thousand more copies out into the marketplace. Now there's one distributor. The market itself has completely changed, and nothing's been done to come up with new accommodations to make up for that. Overshipping, partial returns, a REAL reorder program...these could be used to encourage retailers to up their orders. But it's not happening.

GUS: What do you think the creators' responsibility is when it comes to diversifying the medium? Is it the creator's job to bring about projects that move beyond the bounds of the superhero, or is it the role of the publisher to come up with projects and get Name creators on board? Is diversification something to be desired?

PETER: Diversity is desirable because it brings in a wider audience. That's why one book publisher will have a romance line and a westerns line and a bestsellers line, etc. It's the publisher's job to let the creators know what they're in the market for. It's the creator's job to come up with material that suits those needs and is, ideally, a good story.

ALASDAIR: You've worked in a number of different media, ranging from comics and novels to television. Which have you felt most comfortable with? Or to put it another way, if you could only choose one theatre to work in, which one would it be and why?

PETER: If it could pay me enough to survive, probably novels. It's the purest form of storytelling. It's you and the reader and that's pretty much it.

ALASDAIR: What's the one thing you wish you'd done in comics and haven't yet? Why haven't you done it yet?

PETER: My dream project would be to do Tarzan vs. the Phantom. I think pitting the two jungle lords against each other would be a ton of fun. Of course, with rights considerations and licensing concerns, I doubt it would ever happen.