The inestimable Beau Smith has issued a challenge to Marvel and DC to spend a year telling nothing but done-in-one stories. You can read it here:
http://www.comicsbulletin.com/busted/121341903078446.htm
Of course, the thing is, when you’re issuing a challenge to someone, there should be some reciprocity. Like when a politician, for instance, issues a challenge to others to have campaigns that focus purely on the issues rather than dirt. There’s something at stake for the challenger as well, since he has to abide by the same rules or risk looking like a hypocrite.
What’s Beau putting on the line? Nada. He’s not saying that if Marvel and DC do this, then he will donate ten grand to the CBLDF or climb into a dunk tank or give up his column or something. It’s not like when I threw out the challenge to Marvel to maintain “Captain Marvel” at its then-current cover price and in exchange I would drop my writing fee to $20.99 until sales went up. Beau’s challenge is just, y’know, thrown out there. What’s at stake for Beau? Nothing, really.
What would Marvel and DC have at stake? Well, quite likely plummeting sales across the board. I mean, Marvel already DOES lines with done-in-one, easily accessible stories. They’re called “Marvel Adventures.” I’ve written a bunch of them. They sell for crap. For that matter, “Fallen Angel” exists in its own universe and has had any number of done-in-one stories. Yet when it was a DC title it was cancelled, and as an IDW title it still isn’t burning up the sales charts.
The harsh fact is that crossovers sell and independent stories devoid of contact or context with each other don’t, or at least not as well. Rather than issuing challenges to the companies to change what’s working for them, why not issue challenges to the readership to change their buying habits? And Beau can start by pledging to get subscriptions to every single issue of “Marvel Adventures” titles and to “Fallen Angel.” Sounds like a good way to put one’s money where one’s mouth is.
PAD
• 
From a purely nostalgic standpoint, I would love to see something like this occur…but I do understand why the format has changed to multi-issue story arcs and recognize the need for them in today’s market.
Just seeing you comment on this makes me want to pull out all my old 70’s and 80s comics though. 🙂
Michael
It would be nice to see one shot stories again.
P.S.- PAD, when are you putting up your review for Incredible Hulk?
Peter,
Thanks for taking the time to read Busted Knuckles and putting up your thoughts. Much appreciated.
You brought up a great point in getting the readers to also accept the challenge in possibly changing or adjusting their buying habits. I know as a reader, I’ve adjusted mine by buying the books you mentioned Marvel Adventures as well as Justice League Unlimited at DC. I’ve been doing that for a while now and I’m very happy with them. As a reader, I’d love to see more. Call me greedy or lonely, but I’d love to have more company when it comes to this.
I can understand and see your point in your “Big Time Wrestling-Loser Leaves Town Forever” suggestion. I’d shave my head, but Mohter Nature is quickly doing that for me. I can also understand from marketing comic books, where it would be a huge risk for Marvel or DC to totally change everything they are used to doing, but opportunity dances with those on the dance floor. You know this as well from your time well spent with our mutual and much missed friend Carol Kalish.
My challenge was more from my standpoint as a reader and a writer. I have changed my buying habits and I always strive to make the stories I write as self contained as possible. There should always be a beginning, a middle and end. The end is the goal, without it we tend to wander without aim.
It’s true that I have more mouth than money. If I handled money as well as I handle a mirror I’d be rich. I hope I’m not too old and complacent to change. I’d like to try that being rich thing out for a little while. I might like it. I could buy more mirrors…and comics.
I appreciate and admire your smarts and honesty, Peter. No one can ever say you didn’t back up your words.
Again, thanks for reading.
Your amigo,
Beau
Hi, PAD:
I love your work. I hope you can take a look to mine:
lorenlorente.blogspot.com
I’m pretty sure you’ll find it interesting.
Best.
PAD,
Thanks for this thread. Of course, it got me to thinking, when was the last time one-and-dones were the norm? Even in the ’70s, 2-parters seemed to be more the norm. the first issue would end with a cliffhanger saying “Things don’t look too good for Luke Cage! Will he free himself from this deathtrap in time?” And in the second issue the story was resolved.
And while I can appreciate one-and-dones, more often that not, they just don’t sell. Gray and Palmiotti’s “Jonah Hex” is a perfect example. Dynamite’s “Red Sonja” started with them, but more people seemed to get interested in the book when it became an “epic” that lasted 18 issues.
The only one-and-done book that sells very well that I can think of is “Detective Comics” and that’s Dini on Batman, a combination that is almost impossible to duplicate elsewhere.
Also, it should be worth noting that a lot of these “decompressed” stories are actually well-told and would not have the same impact if all the dialogue, exposition and action were crammed in 1/6 of the pages, like in the old days.
Yeah, a lot of the vocal fan base SAYS they want more fun books, more humor and more done in ones…but they strangely make up excuses not to buy books that are fun, done in one, etc.
Lotta bark, but not a lot of bite.
==Also, it should be worth noting that a lot of these “decompressed” stories are actually well-told and would not have the same impact if all the dialogue, exposition and action were crammed in 1/6 of the pages, like in the old days==
Dialogue would never be crammed if the stories are written correctly.
I blame the Batman television show.
“Tune in tomorrow…same Bat-Time…same Bat-Channel.”
The last 4 issues of Batman, a continuing story, are averaging 70,000 in sales.
The last 4 issues of Detective, a Done In One book, are averaging 50,000 in sales.
And I like the Detective comic better.
Heck, I’d settle for stories in titles staying self-contained. Get rid of all these freakin’ mega-crossovers and I’d be a much happier comics reader. Probably buy more titles, too.
-Chris
I hated serialized stories in 1967, and I still hate ’em. That’s why, even when I was a Marvel Zombie 40 years ago, I never bought strongly serialized titles such as Tales to Astonish, Tales of Suspense or Strange Tales.
When the 1980s rolled around, I hate the mini-series format, and I avoided them because I would invariably miss an issue or two and be one frustrated comics fan.
Today, I hate story arcs that take six to 18 issues to reach some kind of conclusion, which means I don’t buy too many comics anymore.
For example, I bought the first issue of Peter Bagge’s “Apocalypse Nerd” in 2005, never saw issue #2, and then ran across issue #3 something like a year later. Screw that. How the hëll am I supposed to remember what happened previously at that point? It was allegedly a six-issue miniseries, but I have no idea if it was ever completed, and now I no longer care.
Roger Tang,
“Lot of bark, but not a lot of bite”
Exactly. Just like books like “Manhunter” and “newuniversal” are the darlings pf posters on say, Newsarama. But I know many readers – heck, retailers – who say they don’t read them because they ‘don’t matter”. Meaning they’re not part of a megacrossover or an established property like batman and the X-Men. Which means those are the books that get buzz and sales. Which means comic companies would be stupid not to keep giving fans what they obviously want versus what they vote with their dollars – or absence of dollars – to show they don’t.
Alan Coil,
Not everything can be blamed on the batman TV show. In fact, no less an authority than Dennis O’Neill says that the TV show likely saved the “Batman” comic from cancellation during a time it had been struggling. So we should at least give it that.
Also, what is WRONG with having a cliffhanger that makes you want to tune in next week (or next month, as is the case with most comics). That’s part of the magic and fun. Also, I do like “Detective” better as well. I love Dini and have never realy embraced Morrison’s “out there” storytelling. So that choice is easy for me. Many otherds obviously feel differently, however.
ArcLight,
Why should the companies get rid of the megacrossovers? Aslong as they’re done well, what’s the harm? Something like “World War Hulk” was entirely self contained. That was the only book you needed to buy, if that’s all you wanted. But of you wanted to see him confron “Ghost Rider”, you had the option of sampling that. If you wanted to read about his allies, you could pick up “Incredible Hulk”, and that might get you interested enough in them to follow them when it became “Incredible Hercules”. If you wanted Tony Stark’s side of things and a cool two-parter by Christos Gage, you could pick up the “Iron Man: Director of S.H.I.E.L.D.” issues. For the man-on-the-street angle, there was “Frontline”. For a fun “Hulk vs. 3 teams of X-Men” tale there was “World War Hulk: X-Men. there were even decent tieins with “The Irredeemable Ant-Man” and “Punisher War Journal”. Even “Gamma Corps” was okay. The only truly craptacular tie-in, IMHO, was “Heroes For Hire”. Looks like many agreed sine it appears to have been cancelled.
So you can read the main story in the main title, but choose to sample other titles IF YOU WANT TO and get a few more layers to the story. What, really, is wrong with that?
R. Maheras,
While I agree some stories eem a bit padded today, let me just say that in my opinion, what makes comics special is that they ARE serialized entertainment. A truly great comic should have you waiting in anticipation for the next issue, be it next week, month, or whatever. Following the tapestry on even seemingly unrelated stories makes me feel like I am watching true characters that I care about. I don’t want all comics to be like sitcoms, where there is really nothing of consequence that happens in an episode that affects the next. And really, how many GREAT one-and-dones have there been? “Amazing Fantasy” #15, of course. And “The Player On The Other Side” is one of my alltime Batman stories. And “The killing Joke” of course But was the “Dark Phoenix” saga one-and-done? Or the first appearnces of Silver Surfer and Galactus? Or “Batman: Year One” or “The Dark Knight Returns” or “Watchmen”? Even the classic “Nothing Can Stop the Juggernaut” was a two-parter. As were the deaths of Gwen Stacy/Green Goblin story in “Amazing Spider-Man”. Just food for thought.
What’s the big deal about “done-in-ones”? I personally can’t stand them. If I want a stand-alone story, I’ll read a book or watch a movie or TV show. The beauty of comics, to me, and what makes them unique, is the fact that stories can go and on. It’s the sheer scope that makes them so appealing. Serialized television, too, is much more interesting than stand-alone episodes, so I love that it has become the norm now.
And really, when did we ever see stand-alone comic stories as the standard? The ’40s? The early ’60s? When I started reading comics in the ’80s, everything was serialized. Stand-alone issues usually meant fill-in issues, and nobody liked those.
Since then, I’ve gone back and read Stan Lee’s early Marvel stuff, and found that their predictability, the depressing inevitability that the hero will defeat the villain somewhere around page 21 and everything will be wrapped up by the end of the issue, made them a tedious chore to wade through. But you know which ones I did like? The Hulk and Dr. Strange. The serialized stories.
Mark Waid was doing pseudo done-in-one stories in The Brave and the Bold (with a sub-plot that culminated in the 12th issue) and that didn’t sell as well as DC was anticipating.
I’m not really overly interested in done-in-one stories (though I have been enjoying The Brave and the Bold). I’m definitely sick of cross-overs. But there us nothing wrong with stories that run 3 or 4 issues in length (or sometimes even 6 issues if the story is good and it isn’t a 4 issue tale that has been stretched into 6) as long as they are contained within the one title.
One-and-done stories were the norm in comics for more than 45 years, and the norm when average comic book circulations were 10 times what they are today. To shrug them off as “predictable” or “tedious” boggles the mind.
Frankly, I think one of the reasons comics aren’t enjoyed by more people today is precisely because the majority of them ARE serialized. I posit that to attract new readers, and to attract young people whose attention spans are shorter than ever because of channel surfing, Internet surfing, video games, text messaging, et al, comics today cannot afford to take six or 12 or 18 months to tell one bloody story.
Once you gain the precious moment where you have a young person’s attention with a potential product, you had better deliver, and you had better deliver quick, otherwise you may very well lose him/her forever.
I think the hybrid writing system Marvel used on most of its main titles during the 1960s perfectly blended the one-and-done preferences of some readers, and the serialized preferences of others.
For example, whether it was Lee, Kirby or Ditko plotting the story, the main plot was usually resolved in one issue. Occasionally, it would continue into a second month, and once in a great while, when warranted, a story arc would extend three months. A good example of this was “Amazing Spider-Man” #31-33.
Woven into almost every issue, however, was a sub-plot that would run many months or even a year or more. Examples of this would be the Inhumans sub-plot in “Fantastic Four,” or the Green Goblin secret identity sub-plot in “Amazing Spider-Man.”
Also woven into many issues was the character crossover, which I would classify as a serialization gimmick. It was designed for the hard-core fans who had been reading Marvels for awhile, who read a variety of the company’s titles, and who were “in the know.”
Thus, during the 1960s, it generally didn’t matter if you were a new reader of a particular Marvel title or not, you could pretty much jump on board at any time and still enjoy the story in your hand. BUT, because space available for the serialized stories in “Tales to Astonish,” “Tales of Suspense” or “Strange Tales” was much smaller than full-length titles like “Fantastic Four,” it was not possible to make them hybrids. Thus they were generally straight serialized stories.
In the 1960s, the reason I hated such serialized stories is because if I missed an issue, I was screwed. There were no back issue stores then and circulation was often spotty. So, when it came to resoving any loose story lines, a missed issue generally meant it was tough luck, Charlie.
I ran into the same problem in the 1980s when I was stationed overseas and in rural stateside locations that had no nearby comics shops. When miniseries and serialized stories took over the marketplace during that decade, I generally had no way of regularly (or easily) getting such comics. Needless to say, when it came to such serialized titles, I just opted out. This is exactly the reason why, to this day, I’ve never read “Cerebus.” In the past 10 years, I’ve actually sought out some of those better 1980s miniseries when I’ve managed to find entire runs for sale, but that sure isn’t helping the bottom line of the publishers who originally published them.
Flashing forward to today, the current marketplace is starting to be as serialization unfriendly to potential new readers as it was during the 1960s. For example, unless you are a comic shop regular and have a pull list, your odds of getting every issue of a hot new title are greatly reduced. I don’t know how hany times I’ve gone into a comics shop in the past five years or so and seen issue #2 or #3 of a title I’d never, ever seen before. Why? Well, the first issue or two had been gobbled up by regulars or speculators, so I wasn’t even aware the new title existed. Naturally, since almost every title these days is serialized, by the third issue, the story was already well-developed and all the main characters introduced, so I had no idea what was going on. It’s kind of like buying a book and finding that the first two chapters have been ripped out. That’s no way to do business, in my opinion.
Russ Maheras,
“One-and-done stories were the norm in comics for more than 45 years”
No. They really weren’t. In fact, titles like “Action Comics” and “Detective Comics” only had so many pages to work with and kept readers coming back for more specifically because the short stories that hooked readers left you waiting until the next issue. In “Action Comics” #1, the Superman tale ends with him threatening someone by leaping (he couldn’t fly yet) to another pole and missed it and you HAD to read the next issue to find out what happened.
So this is not a new phenomenon and not particularly unhealthy. Superman and batman started this way. And, in those titles you say you hate, Iron Man and Captain America (and the Hulk) all had readersinterested in what happened next issue.
Again, it’s what comics does best.
And with all due respect, Russ, I don’t see how you were screwed if you missed an issue in the ’60s. The overly expository dialogue in those days and “See Hulk # 105” captions should have helped you catch up.
As for today, we now have the “exposition pages” at marvel, that do help new readers understand who’s who and what’s going on if they are jusr starting a title or have missed an issue. AndRuss, doesn’t your comic shop have a Previews so you can see what’s coming out before it hits issue #3? On top of that, truly hot issues are seeing 2nd printings with increasing frequency these days. Why not ask your comic shop owner about either of these options?
And, again, between that option, the “exposition pages” at Marvel, and good storytelling on good books, how would you not know when what was going on? this is the type of stuff that leads to unnecessary “relaunches” with #1s, because the companies assume comic readers will feel lost picking up issue #129 of something. Which is basically horseshit in my humble opinion.
fans who ONLY want one-and-done stories seem to be saying that they don’t want to know about a character’s history and want to pretend that nothing happened before they started reading and nothing important will happen thereafter.
You know what?The first comic I got in my Christmas Stocking was “Amazing Spider-Man” # 141. The story therein hooked me so much that even though I never got the second part of the story until over a decade later, it left an indelible impression on me. I was very intrigued by the story and character.
The comic that got me to collect? “Incredible Hulk” (Vol. 1) #264. It had a simplistic cover but a cliffhanger of an ending that made me want to get issue #265. Moreover, at that time the Hulk was just coming off a World Tour in which he fought the Soviet Super Soldiers, Israel’s Sabra, Thor and others. Though each tale could stand alone, the fact that Bill mantlo seemed to have a plan made it feel all connected. rather than one and done it was a continuing saga that hooked me to this day.
So while i understand and respect your point, I don’t necessarily agree with it.
I’m with Beau Smith. I loved the days when comics had complete stories in every issue- sometimes more than one complete story. I almost never buy mainstream comics – I don’t want to have to buy six or seven issues ( or more) in order to follow an arc or understand what’s going on.
Sometimes I’m able to borrow a paperback from the library and I keep up with my old mainstream favorites (like JLA and Batman) that way. Bring back the complete story!
Probably not a popular opinion, but I personally have little interest in done-in-one stories that don’t contribute to a larger narrative. Keep in mind everything I’m going to say is purely my opinion.
The sense that an overall story is moving in a larger direction is hugely important to maintaining interest in comics. There is such a thing as stand-alone stories within a comic run that eventually contribute to a larger event. For as long as I’ve read comics, that’s been the only real driving force to keep with a book. Couple quick examples that I’ve thoroughly enjoyed in recent years:
-Grant Morrison’s run on JLA culminating to ‘World War Three’
-Green Lantern / Green Lantern Corps’ steady build to ‘Sinestro Corps War’ and the upcoming ‘Blackest Night’ events
I think there’s just a general frustration with poorly executed crossovers that make no sense to individual titles / story arcs. Heck, I love DC but Countdown felt like a year long waste of time. I have little interest in mustering up any enthusiasm for Final Crisis after that painful event. In all honesty, I just hope that Final Crisis doesn’t suck any of the impact from Batman, Superman or from Green Lantern’s current run. Same fear with respect to ‘Trinity’.
I fully agree with slowing down company-wide cross-overs though. Too many creators and story runs disrupted by a single story that bends over backwards to change the status quo (cough)HouseofM(cough) without really contributing any significant insights into the characters involved.
One-and-done stories were the norm in comics for more than 45 years, and the norm when average comic book circulations were 10 times what they are today.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. You can’t draw any connection between the two. With all the shifts between then and now–ID distributors going out of business; newsstand not wanting to bother carrying comics anymore because they were high maintenance/low profit items; spiraling cover prices; the rise of cable TV, the internet, and video games as competitors for consumer dollars; the overall depression in the publishing industry;–it’s preposterous to say that continued stories had anything to do with it. Especially when one considers that early Marvel comics regularized the notion of continuing stories and they sold far more copies than now.
PAD
How about a compromise, as touched on above by Jeffrey Possberg. Marvel and DC want to do huge multi-part epics that spill into almost every book the company makes? Fine. Just make sure that every book tells a complete story. There has to be a beginning, middle and end, not just slapping a trade dress logo on it to tie it into the event. Something has to happen and be resolved.
Continued stories have been around since the 1930s.
Detective Comics #27—first Batman story.
Detective Comics #29-30—first Batman continuity story. Batman fights Doctor Death in both issues, but they could be read as separate issues.
Detective Comics #31-2—first Batman continued story. 31 tells half the story, 32 the other half.
One-in-done’s aren’t completely obsolete, of course. Stan Sakai still manages to do them in most issues of Usagi Yojimbo (yet still often carry on an underlying story thread that can run for months, even years). And the folks at Archie Comics do it all of the time. But then, since books like these are generally dismissed by *serious* superhero comics readers, I guess in some minds, they don’t even count.
Personally I’d see ‘tell nothing but done-in-one stories for a year’ as just as much of an artificial constraint as having to dovetail all the stories into a huge uberarc event saga…
I think different writers, writing different characters, can produce really good – and really bad – stories in either format, so saying one format is automatically better than the other is – to me – a wee bit foolish, a bit like saying that no fantasy story with a page count less than LotR is worth the effort of reading. I’ve read and hugely enjoyed short stories by people like Roger Zelazny and Joan D Vinge, as well as massive epics like Steven Eriksons Malazan Empire monstrosity…
Cheers.
I tend to prefer serialized fiction too.
It’s the reason I started to watch TV shows again. It allows for much more depth of character and plot, when done right.
What I really don’t like much is the crossover. If I’m following a certain favorite writer in a favorite series, I don’t want to be forced to buy different books to know what is going on.
Having things in other books impact the book I’m reading is fine, as long as everything is explained in the book I’m reading.
As for done-in-one stories… I prefer it when they’re about different characters/settings/situations every time. I like the Astro City standalone stories, I used to like the Twilight Zone, and the Outer Limits. But I don’t like the sitcom stuff of having basically the same story over and over again, just changing a few details.
It bores me.
Sigh. Didn’t Marvel in the late 60’s try to go back to the done-in-one format for all of its titles. As I recall, they quickly abandoned the plan after an issue or two.
I never had a huge problem with multi part stories if they were done well. Four issues telling a ripping action/adventure story costs me the same as four issues telling all-in-one stories. My only gripe was over the mega-crossovers and the way that you either had to buy stuff you normally wouldn’t to get the full picture of what just happened to one of your favorite characters or you went without. It was also annoying to have a really good story arc put on hold to accommodate a mega-series I wasn’t interested in anyhow. But the sales figures said that I was in the minority opinion there so I finally just trimmed my shopping list down to a handful of titles.
Back when I started reading comics in the late 70’s I became a Marvel fan because the whole one and done stories DC seemed to do back then bored me. If everything is wrapped up in one issue, what is my incentive to buy the book every month? At least give me some running subplots.
My thought is the price of gas and everything else may force stories to be shorter. When money is tight, will people commit to the long storylines?
I don’t see the inherent virtue of the “done-in-one” story myself. They can be quite good (I like Paul Dini’s DETECTIVE too), but so too can longer arcs (I like Morrison’s BATMAN much more– in fact, I don’t think the character’s been this entertaining since the seventies). It all depends on how it’s handled– I couldn’t make sense of INFINITE CRISIS (maybe I didn’t buy the necessary tie-ins?), but FINAL CRISIS (so far, at least) seems much more comprehensible to me.
JEROME MAIDA wrote: “No. They (one-and-done titles) really weren’t (the norm). In fact, titles like “Action Comics” and “Detective Comics” only had so many pages to work with and kept readers coming back for more specifically because the short stories that hooked readers left you waiting until the next issue.”
You and some other people who responded to my statements have, for some reason, misinterpreted my phrase “the norm” to mean “every story.”
The norm is the average… the biggest bump of the bell curve… the majority.
Comics have never consisted of one type of story formula, and serialized material has always been around. That said, the preponderance of stories from 1933 until the early 1980s were NOT serialized. And many of those that were consisted of the hybrid variety I mentioned, i.e., where the immediate main plot for a particular issue was resolved, but there was some sort of loose end (or subplot) that continued on into subsequent issues.
Today, I argue the pendulum has swung the other way, and the norm in the industry is the serialized story. Not the hybrid serialized story, mind you, but stories that are serialized in such a way that if you miss one or more issues, or walk into the middle of some existing story arc, you often have no idea what the hëll is going on.
For example, my daughter was a huge fan of “Fables” and she recommended I try it. So I did. Unfortunately, I didn’t know who any of the characters were; I didn’t know what was going on and why; and worst of all; in the issues I tried there was no helpful flashbacks or other hooks for the uninitiated to make me want to TRY. It was almost like the writer was arrogantly saying to me, “I’m not interested in new readers, so deal with it.”
Going back to my book analogy, how many people would go out of their way to read a novel like “War and Peace” if they were just handed two random chapters, and then told they’d have to find the missing ones on their own. And oh, by the way, half the chapters have yet to be published. To someone like me, that’s a guarantee the entire novel will never be read. I just don’t have the time to deal with such user-unfriendly escapism.
JEROME MAIDA wrote: “And Russ, doesn’t your comic shop have a Previews so you can see what’s coming out before it hits issue #3?”
The nearest comic book shop to my house is about a half hour away by car, and it is not on my way to anywhere else I normally go. As a matter of fact, in the past 30 years I’ve lived all over the U.S. and overseas, and I can’t remember even ONE comic book store that has ever been conveniently located near to where I lived. That’s why I’ve never had a pull list and have only ordered something from “Previews” a handful of times.
That said, my buying habits, i.e., buying what’s on the rack when I do get to a store, are a mirror image of the first-time or fledgling comics buyer – a demographic that is crucial to the long-term health of the comics industry. And if I – a comics fan of more than 40 years – finds the serialized story situation frustrating and unrewarding, imagine how the neophyte who has no roots in the hobby feels. This is why I think a preponderance of serialized stories is a bad thing – especially now that books have print runs that are so low it is frequently very difficult (and sometimes much more expensive) to get back issues one has missed.
PAD wrote: “You can’t draw any connection between the two. With all the shifts between then and now–ID distributors going out of business; newsstand not wanting to bother carrying comics anymore because they were high maintenance/low profit items; spiraling cover prices; the rise of cable TV, the internet, and video games as competitors for consumer dollars; the overall depression in the publishing industry;–it’s preposterous to say that continued stories had anything to do with it.”
That’s not what I’m saying. I was just pointing out that during the 45 or so years when serialized comics were NOT the norm, sales for comics were doing just fine.
But I do think, as I pointed out above to Jerome, that the current emphasis on serialized comics is detrimental to getting new readers on board for the reasons I cited.
I’m not saying serialized comics are bad per se, but I think it is in the best interests of everyone involved that serialed books are of the hybrid variety. Otherwise, publishers are, in effect, creating an exclusive club that will do nothing but shrink as its members get older.
That’s no way to run a business.
I’m surprised nobody has pointed out a simple reason that tune-in-next-issue sells better than done-in-one.
It’s a comic book. You can read it in one sitting and either put it back on the rack or pay for it.
If the story wraps up in one go, you have less of an incentive to buy it than if it ends on a cliffhanger and you need to buy it AND buy the next one to get the whole story.
The average consumer is not interested in his patriotic duty to the entertainment industry. The average consumer wants to be entertained, and if they can get that entertainment for free, surprise, they’re going to take it.
I don’t see anything inherently wrong in Beau’s challenge. It’s no worse than a generic challenge in any other branch of the entertainment industry by some “special interest” group (i.e., “We issue a challenge for the networks to develop more Latino-centric/African-American-centric/female-lead/LGBT-friendly/religious-positive programs”). There’s rarely any “reciprocity” in these challenges but it doesn’t mean their concerns are less valid. Often, it takes these very challenges for the networks to pay attention to the concerns that these groups bring up.
By the way, PAD, when Marvel decided on the “Nuff Said” month, wasn’t THAT basically a “challenge” like the one Beau’s issued? I don’t really recall Marvel’s setting any sort of “terms” that would either punish those writers and artists who failed the challenge or reward those who succeeded. Were there terms that weren’t published or publicized. I mean, I like READING a comic not just looking at pretty pictures and I wasn’t too happy that Marvel decided (apparently, entirely of its own editorial accord) to require me to provide my own dialogue to match the pictures (especially when I paid the same cover price as the comics with both art and words). As I recall, many of the books could’ve been skipped but there were some that actually continued with the storyline that was already taking place. (I’m guessing that overall Marvel wasn’t too happy with the results since there’s been no repeat performance.)
R. Maheras, I think that even in the 70s the norm at Marvel was the 2-parter, and many of the most succesful Marvel writers of the time (like Roy Thomas and Steve Englehart) were doing a lot of multi-volume sagas.
And the multi-parters are the best remembered stories, usually. Perhaps proof that it’s easier to tell a memorable tale when you have more breathing space.
It’s true that the multi-part stories of the time had a greater sense of closure in their individual chapters, what you call the “hybrid” format.
I agree with you that it would be a good idea to go a little more in this direction of the hybrid. With very few exceptions (like “24”), most serialized TV shows work like that. They’re chapters of a larger story, but they also have some sense beginning, middle, and end in the individual episodes.
IDW releases a series called Transformers: Spotlight, that features a self-contained story
about a particular character, and while some have
major tie-ins to main “series” (the Optimus
Prime, Shockwave, Sixshot, Soundwave, Nightbeat,and Galvatron spotlights all are major tie-ins).
For example, my daughter was a huge fan of “Fables” and she recommended I try it. So I did. Unfortunately, I didn’t know who any of the characters were; I didn’t know what was going on and why; and worst of all; in the issues I tried there was no helpful flashbacks or other hooks for the uninitiated to make me want to TRY. It was almost like the writer was arrogantly saying to me, “I’m not interested in new readers, so deal with it.”
Was it Jim Shooter who would always say that every issue was someone’s first issue and the writers had to take that into account. I remember thinking it was awkward how every issue had a scene where everyone was calling each other by their code names and needlessly explaining their powers but for a first time reader it made a lot of sense to do that (The X-Men coukd always just have a 2 page danger room sequence to take care of that).
Maybe every issue should come with a handy url that would direct the reader to a helpful site that would explain all that has gone on before or at least describe the main characters (Sure, wikipedia could do the job but it might reveal stuff best not known for maximum enjoyment).
I never had a huge problem with multi part stories if they were done well. Four issues telling a ripping action/adventure story costs me the same as four issues telling all-in-one stories. My only gripe was over the mega-crossovers and the way that you either had to buy stuff you normally wouldn’t to get the full picture of what just happened to one of your favorite characters or you went without.
This more or less sums up my feelings on the matter perfectly. Give me good stories — the method of storytelling is secondary.
The key to enjoyment for me in the long term is whether characters change over time. That can be done with serialized stories, although I agree that serialization can get out of hand. It can also be done with one-shot stories, providing that said stories have an underlying character evolution beneath the main plot.
Either way works for me.
TWL
Didn’t Dave Sim say his monthly book stopped bringing in a profit when he had 10 years left on his pledge? My casual math was that his and Gerhard’s salary exceeded $100k soon after he started issuing the phonebooks. I think it’s safe to say declaring war of half of humanity cost him substantial sales, but I’m guessing a couple of guys taking home the equivalent of say $¼million today has always been on the high end of comics creators’ salaries.
After he started High Society, you couldn’t pick up his book as a new reader without a high tolerance for being mostly on the outside of inside jokes. If people want the trades, the publisher doesn’t need the monthly book to make money.
Phil Foglio gives away 3 new pages a week online, and he’s figured out how to take home a living wage. That’s 12 pages a month, which is barely more than bi-monthly. Hëll, the guy making Achewood is paying his mortgage and raising his family updating 3 times a week, an update being anywhere between 1 and 12 panels, copy and pasting most of the art. These guys make it up in the trade collections and their merchandising.
The direction should be like Bell Labs: pay the creators to play. Don’t even worry if the monthly book does better than break even — or even give the stories away online. Then assemble trades that will tear out the readers’ a new áššhølë. Tolerate a ratio of something like subsidizing 6 teams of promising creators for each trade issued. If you need to keep a presence on the comic shelves, populate them with serialized anthologies, but prepare for the time when buyers go to comic stores to buy what they’ve already reviewed online.
Is “Marvel Adventures” really a fair comparison? I mean, I know that comics is often skewed to a younger audience, but MA tends to read like it’s written for a really young audience (10-13). That’s a very different buying public than — say — one shots outside of a standing title. I don’t know the numbers, but I’d bet that the “older” titles — those targeted at 15+ — generally do better than the ‘tweener titles, regardless of multi-book story arcs.
AD
Posted by R. Maheras at June 15, 2008 04:05 PM
“Going back to my book analogy, how many people would go out of their way to read a novel like “War and Peace” if they were just handed two random chapters, and then told they’d have to find the missing ones on their own. And oh, by the way, half the chapters have yet to be published. To someone like me, that’s a guarantee the entire novel will never be read. I just don’t have the time to deal with such user-unfriendly escapism.”
Devil’s Advocate time; isn’t that pretty much what Amazon and other sites do when they publish chapters and excerpts from books? Even from books that are the first part of as yet uncompleted trilogies? There’s an element of ‘if you publish, they will read’ involved. If there’s something in what you’ve read, incomplete though it may be, that grabs your attention, then you can find the rest, albeit with some effort.
Actually, as I vaguely recall from my earlier days in this obsession, tracking down missing issues was part of the overall buzz. Without wanting to seem too bìŧçhÿ, it’s called comic collecting, not comic consuming, which to me implies some degree of effort and involvement in locating and obtaining rather than just sitting there waiting to be spoonfed. Which – arguably – appeals in and of itself to neophytes who enjoy swapping and trading among themselves.
Posted by R. Maheras at June 15, 2008 04:05 PM
“I’m not saying serialized comics are bad per se, but I think it is in the best interests of everyone involved that serialed books are of the hybrid variety. Otherwise, publishers are, in effect, creating an exclusive club that will do nothing but shrink as its members get older.
That’s no way to run a business.”
True, but…
You can’t run a business by shooting your current customer base as you try to reel in the next generation. It’s old farts like me (at 50+) who drop upwards of $5000 per annum on comics who are keeping the ship afloat today. For me, it’s because I still enjoy the experience.. something in a well written comic scratches an itch I have.
If the itch stops getting scratched, I’ll stop buying. (Still haven’t touched a Spidey title since OMD hit the fan. Not likely to either, which supports the business adage about how hard it is to win back a customer you’ve pìššëd øff).
For the record, I loved Civil War and loathed 52/Countdown/Crisis, so I am looking at content over form, and I do appreciate a well crafted one-off, but I do get more pleasure from a story that has room and time enough to grow into something full blown… (There’s also an argument that the one-off ‘entry issue’ also makes a great exit issue… Bought it, didn’t like it, not going to give next month’s issue a chance, stuff your brand/title loyalty)
I’m not entirely sure how we do bring new blood into the club, though I do think the whole Ultimate line was a huge step in the right direction. That line, however, is now developing it’s own degree of complexity that makes it harder to find an entry point… Maybe Origins and Ultimatum can give it an additional set of entry points.
Trades as entry points are good. The trades I do pick up tend to be for titles I didn’t bother with when published monthly but have since heard good things about.. “The Boys” and “Blue Beetle” come to mind in that category.
Digital release of back issues/new content is probably something that will continue to have more and more impact on attracting new readers. If I had to bet real money, that’s the main area I’d be looking at, as per the aforementioned Phil Foglio “Girl Genius” pages and Warren Ellis’ “Freakangels”.
What say PAD, ever thought of getting into that format?
Cheers!
Posted by R. Maheras at June 15, 2008 04:05 PM
“Going back to my book analogy, how many people would go out of their way to read a novel like “War and Peace” if they were just handed two random chapters, and then told they’d have to find the missing ones on their own. And oh, by the way, half the chapters have yet to be published. To someone like me, that’s a guarantee the entire novel will never be read. I just don’t have the time to deal with such user-unfriendly escapism.”
Though this is how War and Peace was initially published, as was very common in the 19th century. In fact War and Peace had it’s ending changed, in edition published a few years later as Tolstoy didn’t like the original. In fact this was very common in the 19th century with Dickens and other novelists issueing most of their works in serial form first.
I think done in one, continuing and the hybrid are all just tools and none of them are inherently better than the rest, but if a writer is forced to rely on just one form, surely there story telling will suffer
I have no problem with a continuing story in the title. Fallen Angel does build from one issue to the next and I eagerly await each issue. I do have a problem with the cross title stories, though because it’s too hard to keep track of the order of the story and which titles to get.
I think each title should be a standalone with continuing or non-continuing stories as the writer sees fit and as each story and character warrants it. You can pick up that title and follow the story from month to month.
PETER J. POOLE wrote: “You can’t run a business by shooting your current customer base as you try to reel in the next generation. It’s old farts like me (at 50+) who drop upwards of $5000 per annum on comics who are keeping the ship afloat today.”
I agree wholeheartedly. But I’m not advocating the elimination of serialized comic book material. I actually agree with those who think Beau Smith’s challenge is a bit over-the-top. However, I believe there is a strong element of truth to his assertion that there is way too much serialized material on the market, and that serialized comic book material is detrimental when it comes to attracting new and younger readers.
About 10 years ago I was talking to my old buddy Ron Massengill, who was working behind the counter at Joe Sarno’s comic shop in Chicago. Ron was a friend of Joe’s and also a friend of Larry Charet, who had a comic book store elsewhere on Chicago’s North Side. Ron worked at both stores from time to time, and during the course of our conversation, Ron said, “We’ve lost the fifth grade.” I asked him what he meant, and he said that he had noticed a disturbing trend: Young people (i.e., the fifth grade) were fast disappearing as customers at both stores.
This worried him, because he said as the fan base grayed, there would not be enough young people left in sufficient numbers to sustain the industry.
His comments were prescient, because both stores, which had started in the very early 1970s and were veritable institutions for Chicago-area comics collectors, have since had to shut their doors. For those who don’t know, Sarno and Charet were two of the founders of the Chicago Comicon (now Wizard World Chicago), and to see their two stores close within a few years of each other was pretty dámņ sad — especially considering both had been around for about three decades.
In another 10 years or so, many of the 50+ crowd of collectors will be retired and on fixed incomes. Where will the serialized books that rely on their buying habits be then?
For any business, the key to survival is growth — increasing one’s customer base, increasing one’s retail outlets, and increasing one’s sales.
Why would any industry’s executives or experts advocate policies that make it harder, not easier, to attract and keep new customers?
Posted by Jerome Maida at June 15, 2008 01:04 AM
ArcLight,
Why should the companies get rid of the megacrossovers?
Well, most obviously because I don’t like them.
As long as they’re done well, what’s the harm? Something like “World War Hulk” was entirely self contained.
…..
So you can read the main story in the main title, but choose to sample other titles IF YOU WANT TO and get a few more layers to the story. What, really, is wrong with that?
Sounds like that one was handled fairly well but how many times has a storyline in a regular title been sidelined/shortchanged by some “event” that spilled across most every title published? Too many times for my liking, which is why I simply said I’d be happier if they stopped it. They want to do some huge multi-part epic, that’s fine by me. Do it as its own series and leave my regular monthly titles alone.
As for ‘done-in-one’ versus serialized stories, I have no real preference as long as the story is as long as it needs to be. With the dependence these days on the trade paperback, there are far too many five and six issue arcs that I feel really could’ve been handled in two or three issues.
-Chris
(apologies if the formatting is screwy – still can’t get the preview option to work right)
ARCLIGHT wrote: “As for ‘done-in-one’ versus serialized stories, I have no real preference as long as the story is as long as it needs to be. With the dependence these days on the trade paperback, there are far too many five and six issue arcs that I feel really could’ve been handled in two or three issues.”
That’s another gripe I have with the serialized format: Story padding.
Again, on a recommendation, I picked up an issue of some critically acclaimed series I’d never read (the name escapes me). The entire issue consisted almost entirely of a couple of characters in some Rio de Janeiro office building, talking. Then, at the end of the story, a beam came down from the sky and destroyed the building.
Yawn… talk about watching paint dry!
In any case, in a Kirby comic book story from the 1960s, that entire issue would have taken place in the space of three or four panels — max!
I mean, am I that impatient and demanding?
I finally figured out what I would like Beau Smith to do if Marvel or DC take him up on this…
Shave his beard AND his head. And change his name to Adrienne. That’s right, I want him to become……
Adrienne Bare Beau.
I don’t think there’s anything necessarily wrong with multi-part stories, but when reading a company-wide crossover like Crisis on Infinite Earths or Infinite Crisis from DC or Secret Wars or Civil War from Marvel, you should be able to follow the story in the main mini or maxi series itself and not feel obligated to read the ancillary books to know what’s going on.
I’ve never read either of the two Marvel series mentioned above, so I can’t comment about them, but I didn’t need to pick up all the Crisis crossover titles to fully understand what was happening in Crisis on Infinite Earths. It’s been a while since I’ve read Crisis, but as best as I remember, if, say, Wonder Woman went off on a mission (to be told in more detail in her own book) in one issue of Crisis, the status of said mission would be addressed, in caption or dialogue, in the next issue. Something like, “Wonder Woman reports she’s convinced the Amazons to help us.”
In this hypothetical situation, if the reader wanted to know how Wonder Woman convinced the Amazons, he or she could pick up the relevant issue of her book, but she or he still knew that she’d succeeded via the pages of Crisis.
To the best of my recollection, Infinite Crisis was likewise reader friendly. The same can’t be said for all recent series and mini series.
Three years ago, in the pages of Comics Buyer’s Guide, Tony Isabella made a complaint about the first issue of the OMAC Project mini-series, one of the miniseries that followed DC Countdown and led into Infinite Crisis. His complaint, in essence, was that the issue wasn’t reader friendly, because he had no point of reference to explain why certain situations were taking place.
In point of fact, the answer to at least one of his questions appeared in DC Countdown, but if he hadn’t read that issue (and apparently he hadn’t), he wouldn’t have known, because OMAC Project #1 lacked either helpful footnotes or dialogue to explain where to find out more.
OMAC Project is, in fact, a very good example of a multi-part story that requires readers to buy more than just those four issues in order to follow the story. As I said, that mini series followed DC Countdown, in which…
SPOILER WARNING (for those who haven’t heard the news in the intervening three years).
*
*
*
*
*
*
Max Lord murders Blue Beetle. By OMAC Project #3, Batman (who’d previously learned of Beetle’s death, but not who killed him), Superman and Wonder Woman have become aware that a new incarnation of Checkmate is somehow connected with Beetle’s death, among other factors. They vow to look into matters, and the issue ends with Lord, who’s watching on various monitors, taking certain defensive steps, including apparently using his powers of mental control on Clark Kent.
How does OMAC Project#4 open? A montage of five rectangular panels of Supes fighting Wondy, Max ensnared in her lasso, and Max saying “kill me.” Turn the page, and we have a splash of Wonder Woman standing over Max’s body, with a shocked Supes, a bloody hand clutching his throat, asking what she’s done.
The last page of OMAC Project #3 told readers to seek out three Superman books and an issue of Wonder Woman to find out more about what lay in store for these characters between the events of OMAC Project#’s 3 and 4, but if you didn’t pick up those issues, you were out of luck. Yes, that montage of panels in #4 told the reader something of what happened, but not how or why.
How many readers, especially new readers, would have known that Max Lord had the ability to control others, or that nosebleeds were a side effect of his power? Max’s corpse had blood trickling from his nose, suggesting the possibility that he made Wonder Woman kill him, for reasons of his own. If that’s the case, did any of the writer’s of Infinite Crisis, 52 or Countdown follow up on it? Not in the pages of Infinite Crisis or 52, so far as I know, but maybe in the pages of Wonder Woman?
Anyway, unless you were reading Justice League in the 1980s and early 1990s (or the fact came up in those Superman and Wonder Woman issues readers were apparently obligated to pick up to fully follow the events of OMAC Project), Max Lord’s nosebleeds had no significance, whatsoever.
Would it have been so hard for issue 4 of that mini series to have had a one or two sentence recap telling us why Supes and Wondy were fighting and/or for there to be a caption directing us to the relevant books to get the full story? After all, if someone had missed #3, they’d likely have been at a complete loss.
Mind you, I don’t like the idea of having to pick up ancillary titles just to follow events in what should be the main series or miniseries (and I never did pick up those other issues), but at least readers who’d missed #3 would know where to go to fill in the blanks.
By now, I assume OMAC Project has been collected in trade format. Does the trade include those Superman and Wonder Woman title? I hope so, otherwise readers seeing the story for the first time would have a lot of questions.
R. Maheras mentioned plots resolved in an issue or two, and subplots that continued across several issues, being a staple of comics in days gone by; and I seem to recall Dennis O’Neill having written something similar in The DC Comics Guide to Writing Comics. To wit: there’s your main plot A, resolved in an issue or two; subplot B, which moves up to main plot status when A is resolved; and subplot C, which moves up to the B slot, and so on. The idea, if I recall correctly, is even as you end one storyline, you still give the reader a reason to come back next time.
Take Fallen Angel, for example. At first glance, the war for Bete Noire appears to be over (and the boy says as much), but Lee, who’s fled that city with her surviving allies, tells him it’s just begun. End issue. Yes, that particular battle has concluded, but what happens next? If you want to know, you need to get the next issue.
I haven’t analyzed Fallen Angel, either the DC or IDW incarnations, but I suspect that even if PAD’s plots were decompressed to allow for possible trade collections, he made sure one or more subplots connected particular storylines to bring readers back after one main story had run its course.
Like I said, I don’t see anything inherently wrong with multi-part stories, so long as they’re self contained in a particular series or miniseries. And if there’s a crossover with or side trip to another series, you shouldn’t be obligated to read it to understand what’s going on. To go back to my hypothetical example, it’s fine to encourage readers to pick up Wonder Woman find out how Wonder Woman got the Amazons to help, but readers shouldn’t have to do so to follow the main storyline in another book.
Maybe Beau Smith’s “done in one” challenge should be amended to include “done in one series or miniseries”, rather than done in one issue?
Rick
P.S. I recently read the trade collecting the first 13 issues of Countdown, and sometimes got the impression, as I went from one issue to another, that I’d missed something or other that took place in other titles and wasn’t summarized in Countdown. If that’s the case, that’s not good. And it’s not reader friendly.
Adrienne Bare Beau? Ouch! I say he has to marry a sheep and become Ram Beau.
Meanwhile…
I think we’re circling multiple helipads here.
We can argue the respective satisfaction value of serial vs one-offs, and the commercial feasibility of them both, and then have endless fun trying to correlate the results of those arguments without ever reaching concensus.
I tend to think that people will want to buy whatever they consider ‘good’ stories in either format, if they can afford them.
Multi series cross-overs, artistically good or bad, are no use to a younger generation who just can’t plonk down the cash to afford all 10/20/30 issues…
Also – harsh bášŧárd mode on – if we talk about commercially successful for the comics industry, do we mean the publishers or the comic stores?
Because if we fake up some numbers, then if a publisher – or any other manufacturer – sells an item through a retail outlet for $5 and makes 5 cents profit, it makes more sense for the publisher to sell the goods as some kind of download or direct sale for $1 so long as they’re getting 6 cents of that dollar…
Hmm.. If I had a real shedload of money to invest, I’d be looking at low cost, high speed, high quality printing and binding technology.
Your comic store then becomes the place where they take your orders and print and bind the comics for you overnight.
The other option would be to look at hand held A4 display pads or ‘smart paper’.
I think the future lies with technology solutions as much as with sales and marketing ideas.
Cheers.
Maheras, the comic you’re talking about is Warren Ellis’s “Planetary”. I don’t think it’s a “padded” comic. You were unlucky to probably pick one of the least new-reader friendly issues of it.
Planetary was planned from the beginning as a series with a definite ending. The first 15 issues or so mostly read well by themselves, since they each narrate a case the characters from the comic investigate. You’d be probably be alright if you picked any of these.
The final issues are the ones wrapping up the long, complicated struggle of the heroes with the bad guys. You got one of those issues. Those are the ones that will only be interesting if you’ve been following the book.
I have to ask. Why do you buy stuff impulsively from the rack if you know you’re going to be disappointed? It makes more sense to order stuff online and read Fables or Planetary in the right order. I don’t think they’re expensive or hard to find online.
RENE wrote: “I have to ask. Why do you buy stuff impulsively from the rack if you know you’re going to be disappointed? It makes more sense to order stuff online and read Fables or Planetary in the right order. I don’t think they’re expensive or hard to find online.”
That’s the way I’ve always bought comics, for reasons explained earlier.
In the case of both “Fables” and “Planetary,” I didn’t but them impulsively. The titles were much ballyhooed by the fan press, and also recommended to me by people whose opinions I trust.
Besides, isn’t that the crux of my whole argument? If I can’t pick up and understand/enjoy what seems to be an interesting title after reading a review or based on someone’s recommendation, what the hëll’s the point of reviews, blog discussions and the like?
Are you saying I’m supposed to either get on board in the beginning when a title is launched, skip the pamphlets entirely and buy the graphic novel, or if I do opt to try a title in the middle of a story arc, I’m expected to find all the previous issues and then read them first?
That’s crazy! Why have a comics rack with new monthly titles in it at all?
No, I think I should be able to go into a comics store, walk up to almost any title, buy it, take it home, read it and understand it (i.e., get my money’s worth for my purchase).
If that’s unreasonable expectations, then I’m guilty as charged.
I dunno. Ask Dickens. Or any serialized SF novelist from the Golden Age. Walk in the middle of one of their stories and you WON’T understand it.