February 16, 2004
Dear Dave,
Thank you very much for the letter. Here's one back, that will reach you after you have sent the last issue to press, so I can't possibly be hoping for future publication. While that has certainly not been my only or often even my primary reason for writing you over the years, I have to admit that sometimes it *was* the primary reason, and even when it wasn't, it was almost always somewhere in the back of my mind.
It is a shame that people don't write letters anymore, but you can't blame it on e-mail. Personal, as opposed to business, letter-writing had all but ceased to exist long before we all had personal computers. Indeed, e-mail has to some extent begun to bring back the tradition of written correspondence that the telephone had almost killed.
On the Stooges, I see what you mean and basically agree, but I was talking about something a bit different. I'd say that despite the feminine opinion of the Stooges as "stupid," the way you handled them would be unlikely to be dismissed out of hand. My wife doesn't think the Stooges are funny (one of her few faults), and I even went through
a period where I tried to pretend I didn't (not with her, we have no need for that sort of nonsense, but back when I was a "male feminist"), so I see exactly what you mean about most females and feminized men dismissing the Stooges themselves (even the brilliant
shorts with Curly, not to mention the occasionally brilliant stuff with Shemp -- I actually agree with the "not funny" verdict on most of the later stuff with Besser or DeRita, though I was happy to see the three as a unit in "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World").
But you provided very little in the way of classic Stooges violent slapstick (though I loved the bit with the milkmaid). And you integrated them into what you were doing so smoothly, that I think that the reaction of most women and/or feminized men -- especially
those still reading Cerebus -- would be "well, I don't know why he's bothering putting those stupid Three Stooges in here, but . . . " and the but would be "he's doing a pretty good job with them" or even "I have to admit it's kind of funny." And again, I mention the sequence depicting Jerome Howard's stroke, which wasn't funny, but on the contrary would have tugged at the heart of the most heavily anti-Stooge feminist Void.
Anyway, that's not the main reason I'm writing you. In a bit of synchronicity (or apophenia, as the case may be), your letter arrived just as I was about ready to write you anyway, about something else entirely.
The main reason I'm writing is to respond to the front inside-cover note to #299, where you say that "High Society" and "Church & State" were not well received when they were coming out, that at the time people still thought of Cerebus as a funny-animal parody of Conan and wanted to know when you'd get back to doing that, and that it's only
revisionist history that looks back on those days as some kind of golden era for the book.
This just isn't true, Dave. I mean, I can understand why you'd think that. You were probably getting a dozen letters a week demanding that Cerebus kill somebody. They probably overwhelmed the positive letters telling you what a great job you were doing or the insightful letters with challenging questions or any of the other more reasonable views that tended to fill up the letter columns because you were to sick to death of so-called "fans" who just didn't get -- AT ALL -- what you were trying to do. I'm sure you got lots and lots of letters like that, and at times it seemed overwhelming and depressing.
And you probably figured that the letters were roughly representative, right? Like, maybe, each letter represented 10 people, or 100 or whatever, so if there were a dozen "when is Cerebus going to kill somebody?" letters and three thoughtful ones, that meant four times as many people wanted it to remain a funny-animal Conan ripoff as liked what you were doing, right?
Wrong. Those people may have been more prolific letter-writers, but they were definitely in the minority.
How do I know? Because the circulation kept going up. And up and up.
In #15, in a letter column, you said that the circulation had been "basically unchanged" since #6, at 4200. That's how many people wanted to read about an aardvark parody of Conan. A little over 4,000. If you'd kept doing nothing but that, you never would have broken 5,000. I doubt if you'd have made it to issue #50, much less #300.
After the Palnu Trilogy (arguably your first attempt at political satire, although I'd count #9 as such), circulation climbed. I'm not sure whether it was in fits and starts or gradually or all at once, because neither you nor Deni mentioned it very often, and all I have to go on are those occasional mentions. But in an answer to just the kind of letters described above, the constant demands to return Cerebus to barbarianism, you put a note at the end of "Aardvark Comment" in #39 saying simply, "No." You went on to say that circulation had doubled since the beginning of "High Society," to around 15,000. This was a bit of an exaggeration, as Deni had mentioned a circulation of 12,000 in her note to #24, but the main point was still true. It had doubled since some point not long before "High Society" began, and it had increased throughout the first half of "High Society," and since the Palnu Trilogy it had almost quadrupled.
And it still continued to climb.
16,500 when Deni began putting the circulation figures on the inside cover near the end of "High Society. Then 17,000. 18,000. 21,500. There was one big drop early in "Church & State" -- that fluke 29,000 for #57 that dropped back immediately to 20,000. My guess is that was caused by the Wolveroach "mini-series" in #54-56 that had some clueless shop owners trying to jump on the bandwagon and then realizing they had missed it. I didn't check all the way through, but I'd be very surprised if circulation dipped below 20,000 through the run of Church & State.
Four or five times as many people were buying and reading Cerebus every month during "High Society" and "Church & State" as were reading it the first 2-1/2 years or so, and at least a few thousand more than ever read it before "High Society" started. They may not have written you encouraging letters, and their opinions may not have been printed in influential magazines, but to dismiss them by saying that only revisionist history sees that period as better than the early days, and that when the comics were coming out nobody thought that way, is just wrong. If I might use your own form of argument against you for a moment, it's quite understandable that you might feel that way and I can understand why you might feel that way, but if you think about it, you'll see that it's simply contrary to fact.
I have been somewhat disheartened to see you recently downgrade and denigrate your contributions to the medium and the industry, particularly in Diamond Previews. It's a self-deprecation that verges on, if you'll excuse the expression, low self-esteem. You should be proud of what you've accomplished. Maybe it didn't match your dreams -- I don't know, maybe you really thought that by 2004, Cerebus would be #1, outselling whoever they've got doing the X-mutant-super-teen-commandos this month. I can't imagine that was ever your ambition, yet I can't imagine what ambition you might have
had that would cause you to look back on the last 26 years and think yourself a failure.
It's true that for years now your circulation has been back down nearly to the early barbarian days, but that is mitigated by two factors: 1) the fact that the industry has been in a decades-long slump and the best-selling comics are selling a fifth of what the best-selling comics were selling when you were starting out, so you're doing as well compared to them as you would have been if you were selling 30,000 comics then; and more importantly, 2) you sell a lot of trade paperbacks to people who never buy the monthly comic. When you consider that at least some of those books are going to public libraries, where each copy might be read by a dozen or two dozen people, your readership is probably higher than you think.
Anyway, #299 is the best issue in years, with a great cliffhanger, and I'm having that itchy anticipation over the next issue that I haven't had in a long, long time -- not just for Cerebus, but for any comic. You've still got it, Dave. You're going out with a bang (although how the hell you can wrap this up now in 20 pages is beyond me). A few months ago, I was worried that the ending was going to ruin the overall achievement. Now, I don't think so. I think this is going to be one hell of a ride right to the end.
Of course, part of that is reassessing the Cerebexegesis itself, which you're right does read much better as a lump. It's still a big, not-easy-to-digest lump, though, and I still think that part forms the weakest part of the whole 6,000 page work. But hey, when the weakest link is still stronger than 99% of what's out there, you're doing OK.
I won't say keep up the good work because the good work is now, for you, over, although I've yet to see the final result of it. I'm hoping you won't stay retired forever, but emulate one of your heroes, Will Eisner, and reinvent yourself and the medium once again in a few years (by my count, Will Eisner has had at least 3 substantial careers where
he's been a tremendous influence in the medium, though only two of them have been even remotely within the "industry" as it's usually perceived, and the middle one that people talk the least about -- incorporating comics into instructional materials -- may turn out to be the most influential in the long run).
I will say take care, and try to enjoy life, even though I know you regard "happiness" and "enjoyment" to be less important than, say "accomplishment." It's not that I disagree, exactly, but I think you've got the accomplishment thing sewn up. I think you've earned
some enjoyment, Dave.
Peace be upon you,
Steve Bolhafner
