I've taken to using my computer as a jukebox. I don't download MP3s, but I do rip my own CDs to MP3 so I can set up a playlist more easily, rather than being limited by the three CDs my hi-fi can hold.

Right now, I've got it set to pump out a mix of John Lee Hooker, Johnny Cash, Tom Waits and Nick Cave. American gothic jukebox. Four artists that come at similar subject matter from at once similar and yet very different angles. You can see the common ground, but there's not a snowballs chance in hell you'd confuse them, despite the similarities.

Why can't I get that in comics? Well, outside of superheroes. Maybe I can get it within the superhero sub-genre, but mostly what I get there is different takes on the same concept. And frankly, I really don't have much interest in half a dozen takes on a man who can fly, but can't remember to put his underpants on before his trousers.

'Comics are driven, if not by novelty, then by the need to appear novel.' Outside of that, I can think of occasional bits of overlap - there's bit of common ground in Azzarello and Bendis' crime writing for example, but even there, they're mostly aiming at very different goals, and that seems to be the norm. Sure, that's great, and I love diversity. But I also like seeing what people do on similar themes with similar settings. I've got half a dozen Weird London Horror books on my shelf, several Scottish Pulps, and so on...

Of course, one of the reasons I can't get this in comics is that the medium is that much smaller that music or prose, and because it's dominated by a single genre. The other thought that occurs is that in music and prose the creators are often given a bit more room to do what they want. (Perhaps not in mainstream chart-pop, but certainly outside of that.)

But beyond that, mainstream comics are pop artefacts. They're driven, if not by novelty, then by the need to appear novel. They should, in theory, be presenting us with something shiny and new every month. The fact is, of course, that like pop music, what they actually present us with is yet another re-working of the same set of basic rules (go and read Bill Drummond and Jimmy Cauty's HOW TO HAVE A NUMBER ONE THE EASY WAY for more on the Golden Rules Of Pop Music).

So, in this rush to look novel, all they've got to go with is the superficial elements.

I'm reminded of an early episode of the BBC comedy YES, PRIME MINISTER, a satire on the mechanics of British government. Jim Hacker, the idealistic new PM, is going to give his first TV address to the nation, and is planning use the appearance to publicly outline his bold plans for sweeping new reforms across the board.

'I really don't have much interest in half a dozen takes on a man who can fly.' His image consultants tell him that if that's what he's planning, he'll need to wear a dark suit, sit in a traditional sort of set, and have very traditional classical music playing in the background - a solid traditional background, so as not to frighten the public by appearing radical.

By the end of the episode, his civil service advisors, who are (as in every episode) determined to prevent him from changing, well, anything, have conspired and convinced him to deliver a speech full of empty nothings, and promise no change - that all will be the same as before. His image consultants tell him that if this is the case, he'll want a light suit, abstract art in the background and modern music - something that looks new and interesting to distract from the lack of anything new.

Not hard to see the parallels with comics there, is it?

This is part of the reason it's so hard to get the comics equivalent of what I outlined above. The acts I mentioned are, in a weird way, quite similar. There's no sense of great novelty with them (or at least, not to my mind, nor, I assume, to their target market). They don't sell for the pop thrill market. They don't need to sound new and massively different with every album - while they grow and evolve, it's perfectly acceptable that I should be able to see the same themes album-to-album, and take a look at their creative influences.

'What interests me is watching a creator tackle themes in his own way, undiluted.' The trade-off for that is, of course, that if I'm going to be buying that sort of thing, it needs to be saying something a bit new and different, even if it doesn't sound like it on the first go out of the box.

This is the strength of having a lot of works coming from the same sort of ground. It forces a lot more thought and originality out of the creators than one might expect at first. But the closest comics get to this sort of thing is often the big multi-title properties - the multitude of X-MEN titles are, for the most part, an outsider metaphor with superhero filter.

This really doesn't feel dreadfully satisfying to me, because what interests me most about this sort thing is watching a creator tackle themes in his or her own way, without diluting it with the demands of a corporate owned property, especially not one that's got to think of the children in the audience. And besides, the big corporate properties are probably the worst offenders for the kind of "all flash-and-dazzle-but-nothing-really-new" problem I mentioned before.

So maybe comics shouldn't be as pop obsessed. Pop is ephemeral. Sure, the concept of Pop may be eternal, and of course there's value in courting it a bit, but a pop hit fades and is gone within a month or two at most. The lasting stuff, the stuff that keeps people coming back, that's the stuff with the confidence to look like the rest of the crowd, so long as it has something new to say. That's the stuff that's going to be around for a long time.

Alasdair Watson is the author of the Eagle Award-nominated RUST.

This article is Ideological Freeware. The author grants permission for its reproduction and redistribution by private individuals on condition that the author and source of the article are clearly shown, no charge is made, and the whole article is reproduced intact, including this notice.