|
Profile Interview: Greg Rucka
by Scott Grunewald
There has to be an easier way to become a comic professional,
but Greg Rucka decided that he needed to write novels first. When
Oni released Greg's first comic series WHITEOUT, it was without
fan fair. But somewhere in the middle of the series people started
to see what they'd been missing, one of the coolest and exciting
comics made in years. Now, almost two years later, Greg Rucka
is a name that most comics fans now know. He's guided Batman through
No Mans Land, released a sequel to WHITEOUT, and was chosen to
launch the revamped Detective Comics. Greg's Batman is a noble,
solitary, and determined and has many fans saying that it's the
strongest take on Batman in decades. So how does Greg deal with
the pressure of writing one of the most iconic characters in comics?
And why did he decide to write comics when his Atticus Kodiak
series of novels is only getting more popular? Greg was kind enough
to take time out of his busy schedule to answer a few questions.
Have you been a fan of comics long, or was it something that
you picked up recently?
I started reading comics irregularly when I was about eight or
nine. My older sister is mentally retarded, and had a huge crush
on Bill Bixby as the Incredible Hulk. I used to buy her comic
books with Hulk stories, and naturally enough I read them myself.
But it didn't really hook me, at least not until I was 12 or so.
At that point I fell in with a group of Marvel Zombie hooligans,
and that pretty much did it--X-Men, Daredevil, and then Miller's
DKR came out, and I was done-for. I kept reading throughout college,
but when I graduated funds were so tight I had to cut back--and
frankly, there wasn't a lot of stuff I was enjoying at that point.
I picked the habit up again after my first novel was published,
and pretty much have stuck with it since.
So what comics are in reading now?
Regularly, I'm reading all of the Bat Books, of course. Transmet,
Preacher, 100 Bullets, Authority. I'll skim the comp box and read
anything there that catches my eye. Just about anything that Bendis
writes I'll read.
Why did you choose to expand from novels, a proven and respected
industry into comics, an industry that is less proven and still
considered to be childish?
Honestly, the popular views of the two mediums didn't really
enter into it. I don't like genre labels in general, and I have
a hard time with the labeling of product as "good" or "bad" simply
as a result of the medium it comes from. I wanted to write comics
because I love reading comics, simple as that. As it is, I'm a
professional writer--part of that implies a willingness to try
writing anything that comes my way--screenplay, stage play, novel,
short story, whatever... comics writing is just another facet
of the career.
What does Batman offer you as a writer?
 Aside
from the fact that he's arguably the single most recognizable
icon in American popular culture, he's also a chance to write--in
essence--the ultimate private eye. My novels are PI novels, for
the most part, and it's a kind of story I adore. And with Batman,
there is a sense of participating in something much larger than
simply the work; to write something that, ideally, will get folded
into a larger canon of work, that will be referred to in another
twenty or fifty or even one hundred years, that's thrilling. Whether
or not comics survive that long, who knows? But Batman will endure,
I'm sure of that.
And it's very, very cool.
When you first took the job writing Batman, was it a little
daunting due to the fact that you were writing an established
character, and if you got something wrong you would have thousands
of rabid fans on your back?
Yes. Pretty much for the reasons you've stated. And the fact
that it's Batman and, hey, well... he's BATMAN.
Did you have the same feelings when you took on Grendel?
Kinda funny you ask that. When the whole Grendel project came
up, Matt had initially imagined it as a novel about Hunter Rose,
and after considering that for a while, I came back and told him
he was out of his mind. Because, honestly, while Batman is iconic,
Hunter is (and I'm gonna use a fancy term here, and hopefully
I'll spell it right) sui generus; I honestly think that the only
person who can write a good Hunter Rose story is Matt Wagner.
Anyone who isn't Matt Wagner and says that they can is probably
lying. That's one of the reasons that the Grendel novel is actually
told by Susan--she was pretty much a blank slate in a lot of ways,
and by writing from her POV, by making the book in part about
her as much as Prime, I dodged that particular bullet. And I think
we got a good novel out of it as a result.
What do you think you brought to the Grendel mythos that hasn't
been seen before?
I think PAST PRIME does a good job at showing just how pointless,
sick, and savage the whole Grendel world is. Most of the stuff
prior has sort of wallowed in how wonderfully violent and twisted
the ideology is, without actually following through on the question
and asking what it's like to NOT be a Grendel in that environment.
One of the things that the novella does fairly well, I think,
is to shine a light into that particular corner and reveal the
whole shebang for the fucked-up construct it truly is.
So was it a relief to taking on a much less iconic character
like Huntress for the Batman/Huntress mini-series?
I wouldn't say a relief. She's actually been harder to work with
in many ways, simply because I've been changing elements of her
origin and her continuity, and that's far more dangerous in its
own way than just stepping wrong with Batman. The Continuity Police
are already after me, as I understand it, and that's a battle
that I have no interest in engaging in; aside from which, it's
utterly irrelevant to the story.
Are there any major differences or pressures between writing
your series of Kodiak novels and writing comic character adaptation
novels?
Well, with the NML novel, most of the really hard work had been
done for me, at least basically--the outline existed, and that's
a fair chunk of the process right there. The decisions that one
makes writing something like NML are more mechanical, in a way--what's
the best approach to convey the story that's already been told;
what's the most important thing to highlight, etc. With Atticus,
it's fairly organic, even though I do work from an outline. But
as I write Atticus, he (and the other characters) suggest actions
in a more naturalistic way... it's less structured. Honestly,
I find Atticus far more difficult to write, because he's all mine,
and I'm wholly responsible for him and his colleagues. I want
those books to be good, solid novels, because they reflect entirely
on me. With NML, while it reflected on myself, it also reflected
on all of the other people involved--the writers and artists who
had contributed, Charlie Kochman and Marco Palmieri (the editors)--and
that was, paradoxically, very reassuring. I knew they wouldn't
let me step wrong, and I was writing with a pretty good net, so
to speak. When I'm working with Atticus, we're on the high-wire
alone, or at least that's how it feels.
Do you think working on that "high wire" alone produces better
material? Or just different material?
I'm not certain it effects the work at all, to be honest. The
pressure to write a good story is always present, pretty much
regardless of the environment around it. I tend to write from
a position of Fear a lot anyway--and I find that it both helps
and hinders at the same time. But the stories in and of themselves
tend to remain outside of that--what changes tends to be my approach
to the actual work more than anything else.
What do comics offer you as a writer?
The opportunity to tell different stories in different ways.
Comics, as a medium, are a beautiful balancing act between words,
image, and imagination, and as a result may be the only means
for telling certain kinds of stories. Something like WHITEOUT,
for instance, while it may work as a novel, is well-suited to
comics--the visual aspect of the story and the location can be
conveyed effectively (and, I suppose, cooperatively) to the reader,
while still leaving room for interpretation and imagination. You
can't do that in a film.
And you don't have access to the atmosphere that you can achieve
with artwork. Or at least art work of Steve Liebers caliber. How
much do you take into account art wise when you write? For instance,
did you tailor the story in your Whiteout books to suit Steve's
strengths?
WHITEOUT was a very specific case, because I could work very closely
with Steve, and he's an excellent collaborator. By the time I
was writing the last issue of the original mini, I was putting
in scenes and sequences as much for dramatic necessity as for
Steve's pleasure. He's been wonderful to work with in that regard,
and very passionate about getting the details right.
In general, I try to picture all of my comics work visually as
I write, meaning I'll pace it as I imagine it'll work on the page.
The Huntress miniseries with Rick Burchett is another example
of good collaboration--he and I communicate very well, and I tailor
my writing to the things he's interested in drawing.
Atticus Kodiak, the protagonist of your series of novels,
seems to have traits culled from both superheroes and characters
from classic detective novels. Was this intentional, or something
that slipped in unconsciously?
 Hmm...
well, I'm a little alarmed at this, actually, because in large
part what Atticus was--at least when he first debuted--was a reaction
to the whole "Private Eye as Superhero" movement that I'd been
seeing in literature over the last twenty years or so. Atticus,
to me, is incredibly human, and incredibly fallible--that, in
fact, is the heart of his drama. He strives to be better than
he is at every turn, and at every turn he discovers his own worst
enemy to be himself.
A lot of Atticus arose out of Raymond Chandler's essay, "The
Simple Art of Murder," which is a great piece and one I recommend
everyone read. In it, Chandler describes the kind of narrator
needed in the PI Novel, and he goes on to say that the "hero in
these stories must be the best man in his world, and a good enough
man for any world." All sexism in the statement aside, I agree
with that, and Atticus, at his heart, strives to be exactly what
Chandler describes.
I was reading stories where it seemed that bullets were quite
literally bouncing off the detective in question, and I really
didn't like that. It seemed to me that these kind of stories--PI
novels--deal in large part with the human condition, with human
frailties and emotions. And I wanted a protagonist who would reflect
those concerns. Atticus is a deeply flawed man--he's prone to
pettiness, and selfishness, and to feeling sorry for himself.
To me, he is very human, very real. There are many traits of his
that are clearly drawn from the long line of PIs that have gone
before, but I think to equate him with a superhero is a mistake.
The stories themselves, they certainly stretch the limits of credibility,
but I do believe, firmly, that Atticus never does anything "beyond"
the ken of mortal man.
Could you see Atticus staring in his own comic series?
No. Atticus is a character from novels, words without illustrations,
and I'm content to let him remain there. I think it would be a
mistake to try and adapt any of the novels to comics.
Is it intentional when you give readers only the briefest
of descriptions of Atticus? At least in contrast to his novels
supporting cast.
Absolutely. I mean, he's telling the story, and for him to explain
how he looks, to embark on long and lingering descriptions of
his physical self... that'd be the height of narcissism. The conceit
of the novels is that they're told by this guy named Kodiak, not
by some bozo named Rucka working out of a basement in Portland.
And Atticus isn't that concerned with what people think he looks
like. He tells you only what you need to know, no more.
I've found, incidentally, that as a result of this, readers describe
him in wildly different fashions--they picture him all sorts of
ways, and each way seems to make them happy. Which is as it should
be.
Could you explain some of the differences between writing
for comics and writing for novels?
Novel writing, for me, is a process that requires far more preparation
and discipline. It simply takes so much longer to put out a novel
than to script a 22 page comic book. That room is a blessing and
a curse, because it allows me to follow the story wherever it
may without fear of running out of space, but at the same time
it means that I can get horribly lost. One of the delights I find
in writing for comics is in the economy of space, how the page
must be used efficiently and with deliberation. In the average
issue of Detective Comics, I've got 22 pages, and in that time
I need to move a story from beginning to, if not end, at least
the issue's end. And I need to do it in such a way that will compel
the reader to pick up the next book. And if I can do that while
making the reader care about the story, about what the characters
are feeling and thinking and doing, so much the better. In its
own way, writing a comic is like playing a game of chess. There's
almost infinite variation, but the environment is fairly controlled.
Why do you think the comic industry is having so many problems
finding new readers?
I'm not certain. Distribution is certainly a problem--to find
most comics these days one has to go to a comics store, and there
aren't really that many of them out there. Getting the material
to the market, so to speak, is critical. And of course there are
a thousand other things competing for the audience's attention.
The major companies have been remarkably incompetent at advertising
their material--that DC comics doesn't spend the money required
to advertise their Batman books during, say, the Batman/Superman
Adventures is a constant source of amazement to me. That's indicative,
I think.
Most people, sadly, just don't know that comic books are still
around, and that, in fact, they've got something for everyone.
How would you change that?
Aside from buying the ad time on the WB, I have no idea. I'm
not certain . We've got to find a way to get the books to a wider
audience, and we've got to bring the price down. But how to do
that? I don't know maybe hemp?
PopImage would like to thank Mr. Rucka for agreeing to the interview. This is actually the second time we've interviewed Greg Rucka. For a discussion Christopher Butcher had with Mr. Rucka before his star had risen quite as high as it is now, check out our October interview. Be sure to catch his work monthly on Detective Comics, from DC Comics. 
Scott Grunewald is the Publisher of PopImage.
Back
Attitude | ProFile
| Industrial
Interviews | Reviews
| Pi Comics
Talkback | Archives
| Gallery
|
