The last couple of weeks can't have been much fun for Fantagraphics. Thanks to a combination of bad luck and bad judgment - a distributor collapse and overestimating bookstore demand - the publisher found itself facing a horrible cashflow snafu. And it turned to a proven solution: tell all to the Internet, and ask people to help you through it by buying more books.

The good news is that it seems to be working out for them. No doubt Fantagraphics will be pleased with the outpouring of support it has witnessed, and so it should. At time of writing, the publisher is not officially out of the woods yet, but the orders seem to be coming in nicely.

Of course, this is the same basic solution that Top Shelf turned to when it was in trouble. It's a solution that was criticised in Tom Spurgeon's essay, "Why Team Comics Is Still A Bad Idea", which appeared in Fantagraphics' Comics Journal earlier this year. According to Spurgeon, fundraising drives such as Top Shelf's are symptomatic of a "Team Comics" mentality that we need to see the back of.

'These groups become insular, exclusionary, and thus counter-productive.' It goes without saying that Spurgeon's article is not necessarily indicative of Fantagraphics' views; and even it was, Fantagraphics would have had to be monumentally stupid or spectacularly principled not to try Top Shelf's approach. Principles are all very well, but this is a matter of survival. Nonetheless, Spurgeon's article did raise some interesting points.

Spurgeon defines the Team Comics mentality as "an implied social contract whereby it is asserted that everyone from comics professionals to readers is obligated to help raise the profile and sales levels of the comic-book industry". Put another way, not only is it a nice idea for readers to engage in so-called "activism", it's actually your duty as a member of the comics community.

In broad terms, I agree with Spurgeon about the mentality, at least in the manner he defines it. The Team Comics mentality has been discernible, although not necessarily dominant, in high-profile "activist" movements for a while. The implication that "if you're not with us you're against us" tends to lead these groups to become insular and exclusionary, and thus counterproductive. The assumption that new readers are, or should be, drawn into the social contract implies a desire not so much to reach a wider audience but to create a wider fandom. There are no casual readers in Team Comics.

Since casual readers are precisely what the medium should be looking to attract, I don't see it as a very helpful approach. Comics need readers far more than they need fans. And readers have no obligations to the industry aside from paying for the books.

'Disliking Fantagraphics is practically a spectator sport for some.' But I'm far from convinced that Top Shelf and Fantagraphics' fundraising drives are necessarily examples of Team Comics. Not all activism fits Spurgeon's Team Comics model; it's perfectly possible to promote the industry yourself without feeling that everybody else should feel obliged to join in. There is no reason why individual readers should feel the faintest obligation to help either publisher. Small businesses go under all the time. It's the way of the world. Sure, it's a shame, but there you go. Even if you believe that people have a social duty to help out others, it's not hard to reel off a long list of political and charitable causes with a more objectively pressing claim on the readers' limited time and resources. When people respond to these appeals, they do so out of goodwill, not duty.

The fact that both Top Shelf and Fantagraphics had established a fund of goodwill to draw on does not imply a Team Comics mentality. Any sensible business wants to build goodwill. It's what branding is all about. Of course Fantagraphics wants people to associate its name with quality and a contribution to the industry. Aside from the fact that it's largely true, it's also good commercial sense. It means that any project associated with them gains instant credibility, which should translate into at least some audience interest and sales.

This is not necessarily cynical. It's not like Fantagraphics, or Top Shelf, promote an inaccurate version of themselves. Simply, you don't have to buy into the Team Comics mentality to support Top Shelf, or Fantagraphics. You just have to like them enough to want to help out.

Of course, Fantagraphics - and The Comics Journal in particular - both carry with them a fair degree of negative goodwill as well. Disliking them is practically a spectator sport in some segments of the comics community. They're used to it by now. The whole image of Fantagrahics and the Journal is based on a crusading zeal that manifests in two ways. First, the tireless promotion of material that Fantagraphics deem deserving; second, the tireless denigration of pretty much everything else.

'You don't have to buy in to Team Comics to support Top Shelf or Fantagraphics.' Fantagraphics seem to subscribe to the view that 99% of everything is crap. They also shamelessly present themselves as being in the remaining 1%. This can easily appear elitist and arrogant. But then, it can also be read as honest self-confidence. 99% of everything is crap. What would be the point in running a publisher like Fantagraphics unless you had conviction that you were in the remaining 1%? Why bother denying it? How modest can crusaders afford to be?

It's all a question of perspective. Fantagraphics' abrasive behaviour may alienate some readers, but it only serves to make others identify with them all the more strongly. They're a divisive and often tactless presence in the industry, but that's a commercial strength as much as a weakness. Divisiveness can be a great brand builder - look at Warren Ellis. If the loyal Fantagraphics reader sees himself as someone who appreciates great comics which are on a higher level than the run-of-the-mill crap, then all the better for Fantagraphics. It gives them an audience who regard their name as a badge of likely quality, making it easier to promote new and unheard of material. If Fantagraphics don't subscribe to a Team Comics mentality, they may have instead promoted Team Fantagraphics. But why not?

Certainly, comics fans tend to be considerably more devoted in this situation than audiences in other media. When Film Four got into trouble, you didn't have people milling around British cinemas trying to start a whip-round. The comics audience does identify unusually strongly with the indie publishers. Personally, I think that's mainly due to two factors - a perception that these business ventures are driven overwhelmingly by art rather than commerce, and a perception that they're basically nice little cottage industries. In the cases of Top Shelf and Fantagraphics, this is not too wide of the mark.

This mentality may only be sustainable because the industry is so small, but then there has to be some sort of upside from the present condition. Even in a larger industry, it's always going to be something that small cult publishers can take advantage of, just as small cult record labels can achieve a following within the record industry.

Appreciative audiences like to lend support; it really comes down to that. It's not about duty, simply goodwill.

Paul O'Brien is the author of the weekly X-AXIS comics review.

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.