Here's what they said;
Hyde changed too many letters, there's too many cat gags in Wackys these days, he never heard of the national bottled water called "Sparkletts", no explanation on GoonPie, Fisties was too mean, he thought Country Spock was a legal issue, though he was totally wrong. Nobody can own the name of "Spock" and the caricature doesn't show a Star Trek uniform. They suggested I redraw the bursting packs on CrabbySun but rejected it in the meantime. Maybe my gags are not funny enough or maybe they're not rendered well enough but they're just rough ideas. They could have been refined later. Taglines can be changed minute to minute but they just shot 'em down.
Ha! I really like that Fruit Hold-Ups - that's a fun one.
You know, as an editor of this kind of stuff, you make the best decisions you can. When I was a comic editor, I made strong decisions. Ten years later, I sometimes look back and wonder why the hell I went one way, and not the other that I considered. Not sure if that's my artistic eye evolving, or the medium, or if it's simply I've forgotten the many factors I had to consider back then. It's probably a mix of all three. There were times I rejected story ideas, and the reasoning I gave might sound like bunk now - and it might have been bunk then. But I can certainly that whatever I said back then, it was honest.
I bring this up because, as a commercial artist, it's going to be rare to ever find an editor who shares all of your sensibilities. As much as we try to make educated, informed decisions, there's still a great deal of subjectivity that comes into play in the end, when you're the guy who calls these shots.
I don't know how the Wacky Editors at Topps operate, but when I was an editor on the X-Men, even when I was making decisions that might not have ended up being great, or made choices that, ten years later, don't seem like the best I could have made - I worked hard, and believed that they were the best choices I was making, at the time. My interest then was in putting the best possible books out for the readers that we could, and getting them out on-time (always a tough task).
Reading this bit of your tale, I have to say that it does suck that the editors at Topps don't have the desire, or the luxury of time, to help bring your rough ideas to full bloom. You bring a tremendous amount of craft and artistry to the table, and clearly a well of passion, too.
At this point, I suppose you could decide that Topps editors have no idea what they're doing by rejecting your stuff - and throw in the towel. Or take the tack that perhaps their position gives them the most valid perspective to choose the best Wackys (at least MOST of the time), and that, in whatever way your work "isn't there yet" is something you're willing to struggle through.
Even if the Topps editors are not 100% right about their criticisms, there have to be some nuggets within their notes that can inspire you to find new approaches to your Wacky submissions.
I look forward to experiencing your next creations, whatever they may be, and as a fan, I'm glad you're out there, pushing the envelope and working hard to create.
