Monitor Duty by Randy Lander "Imprint Trouble Part II" Don't be too confused about the title... way back when at Psycomic, I wrote a column called "Imprint Trouble" about how DC really needed to refocus their Homage imprint. It's one of the pieces I'm proudest of from that time. And it occurred to me the other day that it was about time to take a look at the notion of imprints once again. Only this time, I'm looking at Marvel, who seem to have gone as imprint-crazy as DC lately. And frankly, they lack the variety to require such diversification so far. Startling Stories. MAX. Marvel Knights. It's really only three more imprints, but so far there doesn't seem to be much of a need for all three, especially since none of them are really strongly defined. Say what you will about DC's Vertigo (which MAX has been compared to), but it started out with a strong definition, that it was DC's home for dark horror and fantasy. That definition soon became a prison of similarity that took a few years to break out of, but it also helped stake out Vertigo's territory in the marketplace in the first place. You knew going in what you were getting. It was Matt Wagner, Neil Gaiman, Peter Milligan, Garth Ennis and properties strongly attached in memory to Alan Moore and Grant Morrison. That's quite a pedigree to start out with, even if the latter two were mostly memories of greatness rather than incredible stories at the time. Also, while each creator had his own voice, their was a certain similarity in their approach that made fans of one likely to be fans of the others. By contrast, what does MAX have? Brian Michael Bendis, Garth Ennis and Chuck Austen. All fine creators, but certainly not very much alike in their styles. So the definition would have to come from outside, from the editorial guidance, and although Marvel should be applauded for not forcing editorial constraints down creators' throats, if you want to launch a new imprint, you ought to have a stronger focus for it than "we can have boobies and swears." That two of the books (and those of you who read my reviews know which two I mean) have turned out so good is a testament to good creators across the board, but it doesn't really say anything about the long-term survival of the MAX imprint. Right now, MAX means nothing as an imprint, regardless of the general strength of the offerings. The same is true of Marvel Knights at this point, actually. Marvel Knights started off with a reasonably decent concept, that of the "street heroes" of the Marvel Universe done by talent who were not normally seen at Marvel. It was also some fairly innovative stuff, especially in contrast to a lot of the rest of Marvel's fare at the time, and drew in some folks who weren't interested in simply solid super-heroics like Busiek's Avengers or Waid's Captain America. It was the hip and cutting edge imprint at Marvel, watched over by Joe Quesada and Jimmy Palmiotti and featuring Priest's political super-hero epic Black Panther, film writer/director Kevin Smith's Daredevil and, uh, well...undead Punisher. But 2 out of 3 ain't bad, and they followed up with work by big name creators and unusual takes on Marvel characters. As the imprint continued, its identity spread to being "The good stuff at Marvel." About as defined as Homage was in the beginning, when it was "good creator-owned stuff." Now, however, with Quesada as Editor-in-Chief, Axel Alonso and Stuart Moore bringing in even more top-notch talent and titles from Marvel written by J. Michael Straczynski, Mark Millar, Grant Morrison, Brian Azzarello and so many other big names, almost the entirety of Marvel has been transformed into "the good stuff." They've made X-Force and Cable into worthwhile, readable entertainment, for God's sake! And Marvel Knights currently features good stuff, but amongst its current repertoire we have Elektra, Fantastic Four: 1234 and Ghost Rider, three very different books with little in common other than big name creators. The identity of Marvel Knights has lost focus a little, and it seems like a stronger focus, whether it's back onto "street level" characters or simply a focus on talent who have not worked for Marvel before, would be a nice bit of direction. Startling Stories is less an imprint than a concept at present, and should probably stay that way. It seemed when it was announced to be little other than an excuse to say "out of continuity" but since the out of continuity nature hasn't been made clear, and since MAX also shares that distinction, it's not really enough of a focus for an imprint. Especially since Banner, the enjoyable Startling Stories series from Azzarello and Richard Corben, would have easily fit into the Marvel Knights or MAX imprints with little trouble. I love imprints, really. I think the idea is neat, and I'm fascinated by the different variety that they can offer. But what I'd like to see from Marvel are imprints with a stronger focus. Show me an imprint devoted strictly to non-super-hero stories and see what writers like Sean McKeever, Jessica Abel and Andi Watson could do with the attention of a mainstream audience. Give me an imprint of strong "kid-friendly" books like the loose collection of "Adventures" titles that DC has put together or the slow-building grouping of Alison Dare, Magic Pickle and Jetcat Clubhouse that Oni has published. And I'm all for giving Marvel time to give us these things, but I'd say that until you've got something really different, maybe it's time to hold off on creating new imprints. The purpose of different imprints is diversity, and I'd like to see Marvel experimenting a little more with that, rather than simply giving us a variety of subtly different flavors of super-heroes, all with different names that don't do much other than confuse potential new readers. Because while a strong imprint can have its own brand, a weak imprint does nothing but dilute the main brand of the company, and that doesn't do anybody any favors. Email Randy Lander comments about this column, or discuss it on the Fourth Rail message board.