A couple of weeks back, I wrote a long article about how much +DC Comics and +Marvel Entertainment's insistence on putting out a large, multi-title crossover every single year (along with smaller ones in between) disrupts the normal pattern of story-telling in each individual series. In that article, I stated that the companies have a, "foolhardy tradition of producing a universe-spanning crossover every summer."
Two days ago on IGN, the editor of DC's Justice League line, Brian Cunningham, actually admitted that they do this on purpose (I'm not sure I've ever seen it admitted up-front before, but maybe it has). Indeed, he used the same word I did ("tradition") to refer to these idiotic, series-disrupting events, stating, "Summer is traditionally the 'big summer popcorn extravaganza.'" This year's will be DC's Trinity War (which is what the interview is about), but with that one sentence, Cunningham shows exactly what the editorial/managerial thinking is at the DC front office. They are doing exactly what I accused them of doing a couple of weeks ago: they deliberately produce a mega-crossover every summer. It's now become a "tradition."
This one is a bad tradition, Mr. Cunningham. Stories should evolve of their own momentum, and should not be forced into the rigid mold that requires a crossover at the same time every year. It is exactly this foolhardy "every summer is a popcorn extravaganza" mentality that is the problem.
Interestingly, in the interview, IGN asks Cunningham why it's a crossover and not a stand-alone miniseries. Here, Cunningham's answer is either untruthful, or naive. He claims they're doing this story as a crossover because it feels more like it's "part of the fabric of the DC Universe." My guess is, this is a line that DC throws out to avoid admitting the truth, which is that in today's publishing atmosphere, crossovers are produced solely and exclusively for sales-hype purposes, and have nothing to do with the stories themselves. This crossover is not something that evolved, slowly but surely, out of the brilliant minds of several writers. It was imposed upon them from above (i.e., "Next summer you will produce a JL, JLA, JLD crossover").
I simply refuse to believe that Cunningham is ignorant of this fact, but even if we take his words at face value his answer is silly. Tons of one-shots and mini-series are produced every year by both DC and Marvel, and nobody considers them any less a part of each universe's "fabric" than if they appear in ongoing series. Indeed, in an atmosphere were most comics get terminated and re-numbered to issue 1 every few years, one could argue that all series are now mini-series, and that the true, ongoing series no longer exists.
This is just a follow-up of my previous article, so I won't say a lot more about this topic. I just thought it was interesting that Cunningham used the same word I did ("tradition") and that he openly admitted to it. Again, I'm not sure I've ever seen them admit to doing these crossovers every year on purpose -- they usually like to pretend they are "just doing it for the story" and rarely admit to purposely publishing comics just to sell them. Even Cunningham didn't say those words here, and he probably doesn't realize what he openly admitted to doing (or else he probably would not have made the statement).
Saturday, April 27, 2013
Friday, April 26, 2013
Why it is important for writers to earn their readers' trust
The year was 2005, and I had just closed the book on the final chapter of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince by J.K. Rowling (don't worry -- this topic will be about comics, just hang in there). I'd been a fan of the series for five years, and had read and re-read the first five books so many times I'd lost count. I loved everything about the series. Over the years I had given a special place in my heart to Headmaster Albus Dumbledore; I had come to believe Snape was truly one of the good guys; and I had come to love returning with Harry and his friends to the Hogwarts school each book. In one fell swoop, during the climax and denouement of the story, author Rowling seemed to have taken all three away from me. She had Snape kill Dumbledore -- actually kill him, not just pretend -- which wiped out one of my favorite characters and proved me wrong about Snape in one page. And then at the end, Harry had declared he was not returning to Hogwarts to complete his seventh year.
Needless to say, I could have been very worried about what was going to happen in the final book of my favorite novel series. Rowling, to all appearances, had made choices that could potentially have destroyed my enjoyment of the final book. After all, a Harry Potter book without Dumbledore? Snape being really evil after so many times seeming so and then being proven good (or at least neutral)? And worst of all, no Hogwarts classes to read about, no studying for exams, no going with Hermione to the library? What could book seven possibly have to replace all that?
I certainly would not have predicted most of what happened in the final novel, but as I put down Half-blood Prince, I was not worried. Over 5 years and across six novels spanning thousands of pages of text, J.K. Rowling had earned something very important: my trust. I knew that, whatever she chose to do in the final book, whatever new directions she might have charted, it would be good, and I would enjoy it. She had proven herself capable of writing tales I enjoyed for six novels. I would stay with her until the end.
Much the same phenomenon has happened to me a few times in comic-books. On this blog, I have praised Walt Simonson's Thor run (337-382) many times as being perhaps the greatest comics of all time. Certainly they are up there. Quite a few times during that 45-issue stint, Uncle Walt seemed to have written himself into a corner, to have done things that were at best ill-advised with Thor, only to surprise me with an elegant plot resolution. After enough of these, I started to be comfortable putting myself in his hands. Wherever Uncle Walt wanted to go, I would follow, because I trusted that, in the end, he would write a story that was both enjoyable and satisfying.
Significantly, however, both Rowling and Simonson had to earn my trust. I didn't give it to them at the outset. They had to work at it, by producing high quality stuff, and always resolving plot elements to my satisfaction. They never took the cheap way out. They never retconned earlier parts of their stories, told me major hunks of narrative were "just a dream" after the fact. They never actually painted themselves into a corner and then invoked some kind of lame Deus Ex Machina to get out of it. After enough time, I came to trust they would always play honest and fair with me as a reader, and that they would always produce good stories. Then they had me, and I was willing to go with them wherever they went.
Over the years, only a handful of writers have earned my trust the way Rowling and Simonson did. Barbara and Karl Kesel did, in their Hawk and Dove run. Peter David did, in his 80-issue stint on the third Supergirl series. A few, like Robert Jordan with his Wheel of Time series of novels, earned it but then lost it by violating that trust in later work. My scorn for them is perhaps even stronger than it is for those who never earned it in the first place (like Grant Morrison and Scott Lobdell).
I bring up the matter of trust because, in the six months since I've returned to the comic-book collecting scene, there aren't many writers who have been able to earn my trust. This isn't because the authors don't write well. Rather, it's because they writing questionable scenes in their stories -- scenes that make me wonder what the writer and editor are thinking. And so, in many cases, when I see a cliffhanger, I don't enjoy it the way I used to. Instead, I worry... that it's not just a plot device but that it will lead to bad writing that will do even more to undermine a character I had previously liked, or even more to make me question the title's place on my pull list.
A good example of someone who may be a decent writer, but who has failed to earn my trust, is Rick Remender with his Captain America series. Cap has been restarted (it's not a reboot) and is on issue 6. So far we are still in the first "story arc" which began on issue 1. Cap was transported into the "Dimension of Z" (Arnim Zola) in issue 1 and has been there since. That in itself is not a problem. But as part of the story, twelve years have passed for him in six issues, and some major character-changing events have happened. I'm not sure how we will ever get a "normal," regular Captain America after these events, and I haven't read anything by Remender before, so I'm worried. I don't trust him to bring this story to a satisfying resolution. I'm concerned that when the resolution happens, it will destroy the whole concept of what I like about Cap. In fact I suspect that the more likely scenario is that he will ruin Cap for me.
But it's not just Remender. I'm not sure I trust most of the creative teams to treat my favorite characters with respect at this point. Crossovers like H'el on Earth have seen to that. In fact, of the writers currently active in comics, the only one I trust implicitly at this point, is Gail Simone. When Gail puts a nice juicy cliffhanger into a Batgirl issue, I savor it -- I trust that, whenever the resolution comes about, whether it's next issue or 10 months down the road, I will be satisfied. And I trust that she will not do anything to destroy the fundamentals of Batgirl, the character. The plot will be resolved in a satisfying way that provides a sense of closure and completeness. There will be no Deus Ex Machina, no cheap shots, no claims that the last five issues were "all just a dream."
I wish I could say that more of today's comic-book authors had earned my trust, but they just haven't. Too many of them take a cynical approach toward their characters, treating them as plot devices or sales mechanisms instead.
Trust is important. Trust keeps me buying the next issue when something seemingly ill-advised happens (from a story/plot perspective). Trust makes me come along for the ride. Without that trust, there's no guarantee I will bother looking for the comic next month. Which, incidentally, is very likely to happen with this strange Captain America storyline Remender is doing. Don't get me wrong, the story-line itself is not horrible (though it is not great, either). But before writing something like this, Remender should have done an arc or two to earn my trust. Without that, it's very hard to keep me along for the ride.
Needless to say, I could have been very worried about what was going to happen in the final book of my favorite novel series. Rowling, to all appearances, had made choices that could potentially have destroyed my enjoyment of the final book. After all, a Harry Potter book without Dumbledore? Snape being really evil after so many times seeming so and then being proven good (or at least neutral)? And worst of all, no Hogwarts classes to read about, no studying for exams, no going with Hermione to the library? What could book seven possibly have to replace all that?
I certainly would not have predicted most of what happened in the final novel, but as I put down Half-blood Prince, I was not worried. Over 5 years and across six novels spanning thousands of pages of text, J.K. Rowling had earned something very important: my trust. I knew that, whatever she chose to do in the final book, whatever new directions she might have charted, it would be good, and I would enjoy it. She had proven herself capable of writing tales I enjoyed for six novels. I would stay with her until the end.
Much the same phenomenon has happened to me a few times in comic-books. On this blog, I have praised Walt Simonson's Thor run (337-382) many times as being perhaps the greatest comics of all time. Certainly they are up there. Quite a few times during that 45-issue stint, Uncle Walt seemed to have written himself into a corner, to have done things that were at best ill-advised with Thor, only to surprise me with an elegant plot resolution. After enough of these, I started to be comfortable putting myself in his hands. Wherever Uncle Walt wanted to go, I would follow, because I trusted that, in the end, he would write a story that was both enjoyable and satisfying.
Significantly, however, both Rowling and Simonson had to earn my trust. I didn't give it to them at the outset. They had to work at it, by producing high quality stuff, and always resolving plot elements to my satisfaction. They never took the cheap way out. They never retconned earlier parts of their stories, told me major hunks of narrative were "just a dream" after the fact. They never actually painted themselves into a corner and then invoked some kind of lame Deus Ex Machina to get out of it. After enough time, I came to trust they would always play honest and fair with me as a reader, and that they would always produce good stories. Then they had me, and I was willing to go with them wherever they went.
Over the years, only a handful of writers have earned my trust the way Rowling and Simonson did. Barbara and Karl Kesel did, in their Hawk and Dove run. Peter David did, in his 80-issue stint on the third Supergirl series. A few, like Robert Jordan with his Wheel of Time series of novels, earned it but then lost it by violating that trust in later work. My scorn for them is perhaps even stronger than it is for those who never earned it in the first place (like Grant Morrison and Scott Lobdell).
I bring up the matter of trust because, in the six months since I've returned to the comic-book collecting scene, there aren't many writers who have been able to earn my trust. This isn't because the authors don't write well. Rather, it's because they writing questionable scenes in their stories -- scenes that make me wonder what the writer and editor are thinking. And so, in many cases, when I see a cliffhanger, I don't enjoy it the way I used to. Instead, I worry... that it's not just a plot device but that it will lead to bad writing that will do even more to undermine a character I had previously liked, or even more to make me question the title's place on my pull list.
A good example of someone who may be a decent writer, but who has failed to earn my trust, is Rick Remender with his Captain America series. Cap has been restarted (it's not a reboot) and is on issue 6. So far we are still in the first "story arc" which began on issue 1. Cap was transported into the "Dimension of Z" (Arnim Zola) in issue 1 and has been there since. That in itself is not a problem. But as part of the story, twelve years have passed for him in six issues, and some major character-changing events have happened. I'm not sure how we will ever get a "normal," regular Captain America after these events, and I haven't read anything by Remender before, so I'm worried. I don't trust him to bring this story to a satisfying resolution. I'm concerned that when the resolution happens, it will destroy the whole concept of what I like about Cap. In fact I suspect that the more likely scenario is that he will ruin Cap for me.
But it's not just Remender. I'm not sure I trust most of the creative teams to treat my favorite characters with respect at this point. Crossovers like H'el on Earth have seen to that. In fact, of the writers currently active in comics, the only one I trust implicitly at this point, is Gail Simone. When Gail puts a nice juicy cliffhanger into a Batgirl issue, I savor it -- I trust that, whenever the resolution comes about, whether it's next issue or 10 months down the road, I will be satisfied. And I trust that she will not do anything to destroy the fundamentals of Batgirl, the character. The plot will be resolved in a satisfying way that provides a sense of closure and completeness. There will be no Deus Ex Machina, no cheap shots, no claims that the last five issues were "all just a dream."
I wish I could say that more of today's comic-book authors had earned my trust, but they just haven't. Too many of them take a cynical approach toward their characters, treating them as plot devices or sales mechanisms instead.
Trust is important. Trust keeps me buying the next issue when something seemingly ill-advised happens (from a story/plot perspective). Trust makes me come along for the ride. Without that trust, there's no guarantee I will bother looking for the comic next month. Which, incidentally, is very likely to happen with this strange Captain America storyline Remender is doing. Don't get me wrong, the story-line itself is not horrible (though it is not great, either). But before writing something like this, Remender should have done an arc or two to earn my trust. Without that, it's very hard to keep me along for the ride.
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
New Comic-book Night 4/24 - and some older ones too
For this week's NCN, I knew that Katana 3 was finally coming out (I've grumbled about that for the last two weeks, since it was supposed to come out much earlier this month). There is still no sign of JLA 3, which should have come out last week. This is the last week of April comics, and I had some money left in my "entertainment" budget, so I decided to pick up some back-issues while I was in the shop.
Knowing I had the trade paperback Supergirl: Identity on order (along with some Supergirl/LSH and LSH trades), my first impulse was to pick up some more Girl of Steel literature. I already have (and have read) the first two trades from Supergirl series 3 ("Power," which covers issues 0-5, and "Candor," which covers issues 6-9 plus other stuff). Identity covers issues 10-19. Next on the TPB list is Beyond Good and Evil, which covers issues 23-27. Sharp-eyed readers will notice this leaves a gap -- issues 20, 21, and 22 do not seem to be reprinted in any TPB that I could discover. Therefore, I needed to buy those issues individually. The shop had all three for a slightly unreasonable price, but I bought them anyway. I could easily beat the $3.50 price per issue by shopping online, at a place like Lone Star Comics, but the shipping would eat up any savings. So I picked those up. Once I get Identity, I will have all the Supergirl series 3 stories from issue 0 through issue 22 (which is about 1/3 of the 67-issue series). I will also have all 20 or so issues of LSH in which Supergirl appeared, and the Superman/Batman trade paperback that rebooted her. Not bad for a few months' work.
I still had more than enough money to buy Beyond Good and Evil, but instead, I surprised myself by going in a totally different direction. The comic shop still had out in the "current" area (i.e., not bagged up as back-issues), the previous 5 issues of the Marvel Now! version of Captain America, and issue 6 was on the "last week" shelf. Other than trying, and quickly discarding, Avengers Assemble after reading the first four, badly written, issues back in December, I have not touched a Marvel comic in probably 20 years. I gave up on Marvel in the early 1990s after getting utterly fed up with the whole "mutant thing" (which is a topic for another day). But I've always had a special place in my heart for Cap, who is my favorite Marvel character and is second only to Supergirl on my all-time favorites list.
As I say, it's been a long time, and I have no idea what has been happening with Captain America. Well, that's not completely true. I've heard some things -- like he was killed, and then came back. (I am so shocked at that!) I toyed with this series when it first came out (I believe issue 1 came out right around the time I returned to collecting comics) but in addition to being a Marvel title, I was hesitant to buy anything penciled by John Romita. I have never liked his work since I first saw it way back in the 170s of the original X-Men series.
On the other hand, I've read plenty of other comics with good stories and poor (or even hideous) art. Recent examples include the New 52 Wonder Woman (Chiang is good but Akins is horrible), and Supergirl (As I noted in my first article about that series, Asrar's art has its moments but is really not my cup of tea). And perhaps the best example of all time is the Daring New Adventures of Supergirl, which for 22 of 23 issues was nauseatingly drawn by Carmine Infantino, who in several panels each issue managed the seemingly-impossible task of making Kara Zor-El look ugly. If I could put up with all that on behalf of other characters I love, I suppose I can stomach Romita's art if it's the price of reading good Cap stories.
Of course, whether these stories are any good or not remains to be seen. I haven't read them yet. I'll certainly be reporting on them in the future.
A couple of things I have already noticed, however. I like DC's cover and inside paper better than Marvel's (DC's is smoother and shinier looking). On the other hand, I absolutely love that I get full access to the digital version of the comic by buying the paper version -- at no extra charge! DC wants to charge me an extra buck for that. No thanks. I really like that Marvel doesn't force me to choose formats. I buy the comic, and it gets me the right to both formats. That is as it should be. It's a nice little "thank you" to the fans for our support, and I have to give that one to Marvel. The other thing I noticed (though I haven't read them yet) is that Captain America has a letter column! This is what I've been telling DC to do for months. I'm looking forward to being able to read the letters.
A couple of final notes: There are some brand new "New 52" versions of DC Covergirl statues coming out for Batgirl and Supergirl!
Batgirl:
Supergirl:
These gorgeous 10" statues are due out in Sept/Oct of this year, so reserve your copy today!
Finally, if you like Gail Simone, her Red Sonja series is due out in July. My comic shop is already letting people add it to their pull list, so if you want a copy of issue #1, reserve it today at your local shop!
Knowing I had the trade paperback Supergirl: Identity on order (along with some Supergirl/LSH and LSH trades), my first impulse was to pick up some more Girl of Steel literature. I already have (and have read) the first two trades from Supergirl series 3 ("Power," which covers issues 0-5, and "Candor," which covers issues 6-9 plus other stuff). Identity covers issues 10-19. Next on the TPB list is Beyond Good and Evil, which covers issues 23-27. Sharp-eyed readers will notice this leaves a gap -- issues 20, 21, and 22 do not seem to be reprinted in any TPB that I could discover. Therefore, I needed to buy those issues individually. The shop had all three for a slightly unreasonable price, but I bought them anyway. I could easily beat the $3.50 price per issue by shopping online, at a place like Lone Star Comics, but the shipping would eat up any savings. So I picked those up. Once I get Identity, I will have all the Supergirl series 3 stories from issue 0 through issue 22 (which is about 1/3 of the 67-issue series). I will also have all 20 or so issues of LSH in which Supergirl appeared, and the Superman/Batman trade paperback that rebooted her. Not bad for a few months' work.
I still had more than enough money to buy Beyond Good and Evil, but instead, I surprised myself by going in a totally different direction. The comic shop still had out in the "current" area (i.e., not bagged up as back-issues), the previous 5 issues of the Marvel Now! version of Captain America, and issue 6 was on the "last week" shelf. Other than trying, and quickly discarding, Avengers Assemble after reading the first four, badly written, issues back in December, I have not touched a Marvel comic in probably 20 years. I gave up on Marvel in the early 1990s after getting utterly fed up with the whole "mutant thing" (which is a topic for another day). But I've always had a special place in my heart for Cap, who is my favorite Marvel character and is second only to Supergirl on my all-time favorites list.
As I say, it's been a long time, and I have no idea what has been happening with Captain America. Well, that's not completely true. I've heard some things -- like he was killed, and then came back. (I am so shocked at that!) I toyed with this series when it first came out (I believe issue 1 came out right around the time I returned to collecting comics) but in addition to being a Marvel title, I was hesitant to buy anything penciled by John Romita. I have never liked his work since I first saw it way back in the 170s of the original X-Men series.
On the other hand, I've read plenty of other comics with good stories and poor (or even hideous) art. Recent examples include the New 52 Wonder Woman (Chiang is good but Akins is horrible), and Supergirl (As I noted in my first article about that series, Asrar's art has its moments but is really not my cup of tea). And perhaps the best example of all time is the Daring New Adventures of Supergirl, which for 22 of 23 issues was nauseatingly drawn by Carmine Infantino, who in several panels each issue managed the seemingly-impossible task of making Kara Zor-El look ugly. If I could put up with all that on behalf of other characters I love, I suppose I can stomach Romita's art if it's the price of reading good Cap stories.
Of course, whether these stories are any good or not remains to be seen. I haven't read them yet. I'll certainly be reporting on them in the future.
A couple of things I have already noticed, however. I like DC's cover and inside paper better than Marvel's (DC's is smoother and shinier looking). On the other hand, I absolutely love that I get full access to the digital version of the comic by buying the paper version -- at no extra charge! DC wants to charge me an extra buck for that. No thanks. I really like that Marvel doesn't force me to choose formats. I buy the comic, and it gets me the right to both formats. That is as it should be. It's a nice little "thank you" to the fans for our support, and I have to give that one to Marvel. The other thing I noticed (though I haven't read them yet) is that Captain America has a letter column! This is what I've been telling DC to do for months. I'm looking forward to being able to read the letters.
A couple of final notes: There are some brand new "New 52" versions of DC Covergirl statues coming out for Batgirl and Supergirl!
Batgirl:
Supergirl:
These gorgeous 10" statues are due out in Sept/Oct of this year, so reserve your copy today!
Finally, if you like Gail Simone, her Red Sonja series is due out in July. My comic shop is already letting people add it to their pull list, so if you want a copy of issue #1, reserve it today at your local shop!
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
New Comic-book Night - 4/17
It's Wednesday, and that means it's New Comic-book Night. Once again, one of the comics that normally comes out this week (JLA) did not (I'm not clear on why that is), and Katana is still delayed (it's coming out next week apparently). But two of the three titles that I actually have on my comic-shop's pull list did come out today: Supergirl 19 and Justice League 19. I picked them up late this afternoon, and I've already read both.
These two latest installments have been a definite improvement over the recent issues of these titles.
Supergirl 19 - The Supergirl series has been in the absolute toilet since #13, first with the cringe-worthy H'el on Earth crossover into the other S-family books (#14-17), and then with the highly questionable "aftermath" issue, written in obvious haste (and without any coherence) by a fill-in writer. It's truly a shame that Mike Johnson is leaving Supergirl after this issue, and that he wasn't allowed to write the stories he wanted to for the last half-year. This issue is the best since #13, and shows just how good this book could have been if it hadn't been for the H'el crossover. It's a shame after starting up this new story-line that Mike will not finish it. Also, the way the book ends, leaves no doubt in my mind that Mike was basically forced off the book. If he was leaving voluntarily, surely he would have planned an "ending" to wrap things up instead of starting a new story arc and then leaving one issue into it. That said, Supergirl 19 is well worth a read. This series, despite being about Supergirl, was hovering on the brink of being yanked from my pull list (an event that should be unthinkable -- heck it should violate the laws of nature). That's how bad it had gotten. Issue 19 redeemed it (and convinced me that all the "bad" in the last few issues happened because people other than Mike Johnson were calling the shots). I'll be around for a few more months at least, to see what the new writer does with it.
Justice League 19 - JL has had its ups and downs. The first story arc was incredibly strong for five issues and then fizzled at the end (with a very disappointing treatment of Darkseid). This then started to become a pattern, with each story arc building up well and then coming to an abrupt, unsatisfying conclusion without a real climax. The most recent of these was the Throne of Atlantis crossover with Aquaman. Then we were treated to an issue 18 story that was all over the place, and honestly between that and Throne, I was starting to question Geoff Johns' writing (which had, up until JL #14, been quite strong with the exception of those pesky climaxes). Issue 19 redeemed Johns as well here. He did a good job with the story. This issue is probably a lead-in to yet another crossover (Trinity War), which is set to consume the Justice League family of titles this summer. I can only sigh. Enough with the crossovers. This one seems like it may be interesting at least (much more so than Throne). However, Johns needs to work on his conclusions/climaxes or this is going to be just one more disappointment.
Overall, I was fairly happy with both books. Although neither is a 10 out of 10, we've at least been able to move up out of the 6s and 7s (or worse) that these titles have been hovering in over the last few months.
These two latest installments have been a definite improvement over the recent issues of these titles.
Supergirl 19 - The Supergirl series has been in the absolute toilet since #13, first with the cringe-worthy H'el on Earth crossover into the other S-family books (#14-17), and then with the highly questionable "aftermath" issue, written in obvious haste (and without any coherence) by a fill-in writer. It's truly a shame that Mike Johnson is leaving Supergirl after this issue, and that he wasn't allowed to write the stories he wanted to for the last half-year. This issue is the best since #13, and shows just how good this book could have been if it hadn't been for the H'el crossover. It's a shame after starting up this new story-line that Mike will not finish it. Also, the way the book ends, leaves no doubt in my mind that Mike was basically forced off the book. If he was leaving voluntarily, surely he would have planned an "ending" to wrap things up instead of starting a new story arc and then leaving one issue into it. That said, Supergirl 19 is well worth a read. This series, despite being about Supergirl, was hovering on the brink of being yanked from my pull list (an event that should be unthinkable -- heck it should violate the laws of nature). That's how bad it had gotten. Issue 19 redeemed it (and convinced me that all the "bad" in the last few issues happened because people other than Mike Johnson were calling the shots). I'll be around for a few more months at least, to see what the new writer does with it.
Justice League 19 - JL has had its ups and downs. The first story arc was incredibly strong for five issues and then fizzled at the end (with a very disappointing treatment of Darkseid). This then started to become a pattern, with each story arc building up well and then coming to an abrupt, unsatisfying conclusion without a real climax. The most recent of these was the Throne of Atlantis crossover with Aquaman. Then we were treated to an issue 18 story that was all over the place, and honestly between that and Throne, I was starting to question Geoff Johns' writing (which had, up until JL #14, been quite strong with the exception of those pesky climaxes). Issue 19 redeemed Johns as well here. He did a good job with the story. This issue is probably a lead-in to yet another crossover (Trinity War), which is set to consume the Justice League family of titles this summer. I can only sigh. Enough with the crossovers. This one seems like it may be interesting at least (much more so than Throne). However, Johns needs to work on his conclusions/climaxes or this is going to be just one more disappointment.
Overall, I was fairly happy with both books. Although neither is a 10 out of 10, we've at least been able to move up out of the 6s and 7s (or worse) that these titles have been hovering in over the last few months.
Saturday, April 13, 2013
How comic-book universes can become too "coordinated"
People who don't read comic-books at all have very little appreciation for how complicated the "continuity" of a comic-book universe can be. For example, one day at lunch I was trying to explain to a co-worker, who has never read a comic-book in her life nor even watched most superhero movies, what the "New 52" is in the +DC Comics universe. As I described some of the difficulties and inconsistencies in the continuity, she stopped me and said, "Wait a minute. You're telling me that Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern... all these characters co-exist in the same universe?"
"Yes," I responded. "That's why they can all be on the Justice League. And then on top of that there are the Teen Titans, and the Birds of Prey, and the Legion of Superheroes. It's all part of one continuity."
"Well, then that's the problem," she answered. "Trying to make them all co-exist would obviously lead to trouble."
Now, the typical comic fan's knee-jerk reaction to this might be to laugh at her, since after all, these characters have co-existed in the same universe for decades. However, it struck me then, and still does today, that she had a good point. The reason there are so many continuity problems in both +DC Comics and +Marvel Entertainment universes is that there are so many titles, following so many characters, all happening at the same time, that these many threads are impossible to coordinate into a logical and coherent whole.
However, the really severe continuity problems bubbling up to the surface every month in title after title are relatively new to the medium (the last couple of decades). Early on, even though the overall continuity may have been messier if you tried to, say, make a flow chart of it (with all the infinite DC Universes), the average reader could ignore most of the chaos while following a given series, because each series was relatively independent. Writers and artists answered to the editors of individual titles, but those titles could go wherever the creative team and editor wanted them to. There was very little "top down" control of the universes, and they were not all that well coordinated (other than practical concerns, such as making sure that the same villain wasn't appearing at the same time in multiple books). To facilitate this, artificial "barriers" were constructed from book to book. For instance, the major characters tended to operate in their own unique city -- Batman and Robin worked out of Gotham City; Superman worked out of Metropolis; Supergirl worked out of Chicago.
Back before the mid-80s, universe-wide crossovers simply didn't occur (Marvel's Secret Wars limited series was the first one, followed the next year by DC's Crisis on Infinite Earths). Absent that, or the limited "guest star" appearances from time to time, because they took place in different locales, each comic-book operated sort of in its own miniature "universe." The hero had his or her own "rogues' gallery" of rotating enemies, the series had its own supporting cast, and so forth. This setup caused the overall universe to be only loosely connected (Supergirl and Batman theoretically took place on the same planet at the same time, but one almost never saw any of the characters from one book appear in the other). As a result, creative teams had great autonomy and freedom. The focus of all stories and content in those days revolved around the unit of the series.
Today, things are very different. Since the 1980s, comics publishers have become obsessed with producing crossovers. DC, in particular, seems to have fallen victim to the mentality of having a crossover just to have a crossover. With the New 52, for example, there seems to have been a company-wide mandate that each group or "family" of books would have a crossover during the post-zero-month issues (#13-17 in most cases, or thereabouts). For example, the Superman Family of books had H'el on Earth (Supergirl, Superboy, and Superman 14-17 plus additional bits pre and post). The Bat-Family of books had the Death of the Family Crossover (roughly issues 14-17 of most books in the family). The "Justice League" family had a sort-of crossover (Throne of Atlantis, JL and Aquaman 15-17). Other crossovers at the time included Swamp Thing/Animal Man, and the Green Lantern family, among others.
To get all these crossovers to happen on the same months, the front office (the editors and assistant editors and higher-ups like Dan Didio and Jim Lee) had to issue a company-wide fiat that all the post-zero issues will be crossovers. Indeed, they also issued a company-wide mandate that all the 13th issues of New 52, in every single series, would be issue 0 origin stories, and that every issue 0 would have some "shocking" piece that would lead into the second year.
Here is the problem with this kind of rigid coordination: it is simply not possible that dozens of different series about dozens of different characters, with creative teams that write stories at different paces, and thematic material that runs at different speeds, could all be in the right place for a zero issue or a crossover all at the same time. Stories take different amounts of time to develop because characters and hero teams are unique, and storytellers delve into character backgrounds unequally. It's simply not the case that the pace of a Batman storyline, which usually involves lots of detective work and crime solving, and the pace of a Superman storyline, which may involve flying into outer space facing universal threats, would be even remotely similar. These stories should (no -- must) take place at different speeds covering a different number of issues by their very nature.
By forcing crossovers to happen all on the same month in every title, DC's front office is ensuring that the crossover story will not fit well into many, perhaps even most, of the participating titles. They are trying to force a highly rigid and inflexible coordinated structure onto what ought to be an inherently organic, dynamic process (the creativity of many different teams each doing its own thing). Thus, DC and Marvel have become, quite literally, too coordinated.
A great example of how the over-coordination does not work is the companies' foolhardy tradition of producing a "universe spanning" crossover every summer. By forcing most of their titles to participate in one of these 3-month affairs each year, they are implicitly forcing what I call a "9+3" structure on every title in the line -- 9 months of series stories, then 3 months of crossover, then 9 months of series, then 3 of crossover. The problem is that stories don't always take the same number of issues to develop. Some stories may take four issues. Others may take eleven. Because of the rigid structure of these highly coordinated universes, however, the writers end up having to squeeze or stretch stories to fit a given number of issues, rather than just letting the stories resolve of their own momentum.
The over-coordination of comics universes is, I think, a huge mistake. Instead of a story taking "as long as it needs to take," we have editors forcing creative teams to wrap things up this month so the crossover can happen next month, or telling them to stretch the story out for two more issues because there's a crossover coming and there's no point starting another arc now when it will just get interrupted.
"Yes," I responded. "That's why they can all be on the Justice League. And then on top of that there are the Teen Titans, and the Birds of Prey, and the Legion of Superheroes. It's all part of one continuity."
"Well, then that's the problem," she answered. "Trying to make them all co-exist would obviously lead to trouble."
Now, the typical comic fan's knee-jerk reaction to this might be to laugh at her, since after all, these characters have co-existed in the same universe for decades. However, it struck me then, and still does today, that she had a good point. The reason there are so many continuity problems in both +DC Comics and +Marvel Entertainment universes is that there are so many titles, following so many characters, all happening at the same time, that these many threads are impossible to coordinate into a logical and coherent whole.
However, the really severe continuity problems bubbling up to the surface every month in title after title are relatively new to the medium (the last couple of decades). Early on, even though the overall continuity may have been messier if you tried to, say, make a flow chart of it (with all the infinite DC Universes), the average reader could ignore most of the chaos while following a given series, because each series was relatively independent. Writers and artists answered to the editors of individual titles, but those titles could go wherever the creative team and editor wanted them to. There was very little "top down" control of the universes, and they were not all that well coordinated (other than practical concerns, such as making sure that the same villain wasn't appearing at the same time in multiple books). To facilitate this, artificial "barriers" were constructed from book to book. For instance, the major characters tended to operate in their own unique city -- Batman and Robin worked out of Gotham City; Superman worked out of Metropolis; Supergirl worked out of Chicago.
Back before the mid-80s, universe-wide crossovers simply didn't occur (Marvel's Secret Wars limited series was the first one, followed the next year by DC's Crisis on Infinite Earths). Absent that, or the limited "guest star" appearances from time to time, because they took place in different locales, each comic-book operated sort of in its own miniature "universe." The hero had his or her own "rogues' gallery" of rotating enemies, the series had its own supporting cast, and so forth. This setup caused the overall universe to be only loosely connected (Supergirl and Batman theoretically took place on the same planet at the same time, but one almost never saw any of the characters from one book appear in the other). As a result, creative teams had great autonomy and freedom. The focus of all stories and content in those days revolved around the unit of the series.
Today, things are very different. Since the 1980s, comics publishers have become obsessed with producing crossovers. DC, in particular, seems to have fallen victim to the mentality of having a crossover just to have a crossover. With the New 52, for example, there seems to have been a company-wide mandate that each group or "family" of books would have a crossover during the post-zero-month issues (#13-17 in most cases, or thereabouts). For example, the Superman Family of books had H'el on Earth (Supergirl, Superboy, and Superman 14-17 plus additional bits pre and post). The Bat-Family of books had the Death of the Family Crossover (roughly issues 14-17 of most books in the family). The "Justice League" family had a sort-of crossover (Throne of Atlantis, JL and Aquaman 15-17). Other crossovers at the time included Swamp Thing/Animal Man, and the Green Lantern family, among others.
To get all these crossovers to happen on the same months, the front office (the editors and assistant editors and higher-ups like Dan Didio and Jim Lee) had to issue a company-wide fiat that all the post-zero issues will be crossovers. Indeed, they also issued a company-wide mandate that all the 13th issues of New 52, in every single series, would be issue 0 origin stories, and that every issue 0 would have some "shocking" piece that would lead into the second year.
Here is the problem with this kind of rigid coordination: it is simply not possible that dozens of different series about dozens of different characters, with creative teams that write stories at different paces, and thematic material that runs at different speeds, could all be in the right place for a zero issue or a crossover all at the same time. Stories take different amounts of time to develop because characters and hero teams are unique, and storytellers delve into character backgrounds unequally. It's simply not the case that the pace of a Batman storyline, which usually involves lots of detective work and crime solving, and the pace of a Superman storyline, which may involve flying into outer space facing universal threats, would be even remotely similar. These stories should (no -- must) take place at different speeds covering a different number of issues by their very nature.
By forcing crossovers to happen all on the same month in every title, DC's front office is ensuring that the crossover story will not fit well into many, perhaps even most, of the participating titles. They are trying to force a highly rigid and inflexible coordinated structure onto what ought to be an inherently organic, dynamic process (the creativity of many different teams each doing its own thing). Thus, DC and Marvel have become, quite literally, too coordinated.
A great example of how the over-coordination does not work is the companies' foolhardy tradition of producing a "universe spanning" crossover every summer. By forcing most of their titles to participate in one of these 3-month affairs each year, they are implicitly forcing what I call a "9+3" structure on every title in the line -- 9 months of series stories, then 3 months of crossover, then 9 months of series, then 3 of crossover. The problem is that stories don't always take the same number of issues to develop. Some stories may take four issues. Others may take eleven. Because of the rigid structure of these highly coordinated universes, however, the writers end up having to squeeze or stretch stories to fit a given number of issues, rather than just letting the stories resolve of their own momentum.
Now, both +DC Comics and +Marvel Entertainment would argue that crossovers increase sales. But I think that argument rests on faulty assumptions. For instance, to what are they comparing the sales? Regular sales rely on non-crossover story arcs that are being artificially squeezed and stretched into a rigid, coordinated structure that is dictated by the timing of crossovers. I argue here that this very coordination is making today's story arcs dramatically inferior to the story arcs of the pre-crossover-crazed era. I maintain, in other words, that sales are down across the line compared to years ago because the storylines in each series today are inferior to the stories of the past. And the storylines are inferior because of the interference of the crossovers. Thus, crossovers are needed to boost sales that are lagging because the crossovers are cramping the styles of creative teams and making the storylines of each series inferior in the first place.
I will always believe that quality sells, and great stories will sell comic-books. If the companies are producing quality, such as the Great Darkness Saga, or the Dark Phoenix Saga, then no sales gimmicks (which all a crossover amounts to) are needed. The only reason crossovers are needed now is because the quality isn't there. And I argue that the iron-clad coordination companies need to run crossovers in the first place, is making it impossible for creative teams to produce good content.
If companies are ever going to get back to selling hundreds of thousands, instead of tens of thousands, of copies per title, the only way to do it is with quality, not sales gimmicks. It's time for DC and Marvel to realize that the "crossover every year" model does not work, and that their sales are declining in part because of that model. Yes, it's a sales gimmick, so yes, participating series see a small, temporary sales boost during the crossover. But the series are hurt, not helped, in the long run.
That's why if you look at comichron's sales figures through March, you'll see that H'el on Earth did not boost sales in the Superman Family. For the four months before that crossover, Superman sold an average of 55,000 issues per month. During the crossover, it sold an average of 51,000 per month (a drop in sales during the crossover!). Issue 18 (the first post-crossover story) sold 48,000. Superboy had fallen to 25,000 copies per month right before the crossover, and its sales were (slightly) boosted to 27,300 copies per issue of the crossover. However, sales went right back down again post-H'el, to 24,455 (issue 18).
And the story is not true just for H'el on Earth. Looking at Death of the Family, the Bat-family crossover earlier this year, we see a similar pattern. It's a little less "clean" because, for example, Detective Comics only participated in this story with issues 15-16, whereas Catwoman crossed into it in issues 13-14. The pattern, however, is clear for every title as well as across the family line. Batman averaged about 130,000 copies per month before the crossover, about 151,000 during, and dropped back down to 137,00 after it (even considering that the "post" issue was a crossover into the death of Robin). Batgirl averaged 48,000 copies per month before the crossover, 68,000 during, and is back to 51,000 after. Detective Comics averaged 75,000 copies per month before the crossover, and soared to 99,000 per month during it, but two months later has crashed back down to 76,000 per month. Total sales across the family averaged 421,000 before the crossover, and 482,000 during it (showing that yes, the crossover itself does boost sales in the short term), but has now dropped to 416,000 total for the most recent month -- slightly worse than the pre-crossover numbers.
These numbers suggest that, although crossovers do boost sales for the short term, they do nothing for sales in the long term, and by my argument, they are actually hurting sales long term. Because the crossovers interrupt, screw with, and ultimately worsen the main storylines of the individual series, readers get frustrated and give up little by little, month by month. The short-term sales boost this month, this spring, from a big crossover is paid for in spades during the months down the road, as readership declines due to the overall lack of quality that is caused by forcing story-arc rigidity onto creative teams.
It's time comic book companies stopped looking at the short run, and started thinking long term. And in the long run, it is much better to give creative teams freedom than to restrict them by forcing universe-spanning crossovers onto every series every single year. DC and Marvel need to go back to having the series be the unit of publication, rather than the crossover. That's the only way we're going to get the quality to go back up in our favorite titles.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
New Comic-book Night - 4/10/13
It's New Comic-book Night once again... and this week, I finally have a new comic to actually buy (most of the comics I buy are digital, so I don't need to buy them on "the night" or go to the comic shop). Actually, I had expected two comics tonight -- Batgirl 19 and Katana 3, but for some reason, Katana was not published this week. Either it was delayed, or the poor thing has been canceled already (not an unprecedented move for +DC Comics these days). On the other hand, I saw a solicit for Katana 6, so my guess is, there was just some sort of delay, or perhaps +DC Comics decided to change the publication week to match JLA and the other JLA-based books like Vibe.
In any case, that means the only new book for me to get on NCN this week was Batgirl. I haven't read it yet, but I'm already ecstatic, because Gail Simone is back! This means Batgirl will probably return to the top of my favorite comics list, since it has suffered badly in the 2 months Gail was gone. Note to DC: Gail Simone is Batgirl. Do not take her off this book, ever again. If I were running things, whoever fired Gail would have been fired instead.
Along with Batgirl 19, I also picked up two more trade paperbacks involving Supergirl's 3rd incarnation (the second version of Kara Zor-El) -- Supergirl and The Legion of Superheroes. The two TPBs the comic shop had were "Adult Education" (the second of four trades starring the Girl of Steel in the 31st century) and "Dominator War."
One TPB remains ("Quest for Cosmic Boy") but my comic shop did not have it, so that will have to be ordered at some point. Following this, there are two more TPBs of this version of the Legion, which I will also have to order, since the comic shop has very little "Legionalia."
What I really wanted to pick up tonight was Supergirl: Identity, which is the third TPB in the third Supergirl series. Unfortunately, that seems to have sold out not only of my comic shop (and it was there three weeks ago -- ARGH!), but also of everywhere else for some reason. I'm not sure why there is suddenly a "run" on that particular TPB, but I may have to wait a while before I can continue collecting that series -- or else try to buy the individual comics, which are issues 10-19 of that series. It's an option (they are not that expensive), but I'm really trying to stick with TPBs this time around (I would have for the Peter David series but there really aren't any TPB versions of that one).
Well, that's it for NCN this week. Next week there should be three or four new titles to pick up (JLA, JL, Supergirl, and possibly Katana).
In any case, that means the only new book for me to get on NCN this week was Batgirl. I haven't read it yet, but I'm already ecstatic, because Gail Simone is back! This means Batgirl will probably return to the top of my favorite comics list, since it has suffered badly in the 2 months Gail was gone. Note to DC: Gail Simone is Batgirl. Do not take her off this book, ever again. If I were running things, whoever fired Gail would have been fired instead.
Along with Batgirl 19, I also picked up two more trade paperbacks involving Supergirl's 3rd incarnation (the second version of Kara Zor-El) -- Supergirl and The Legion of Superheroes. The two TPBs the comic shop had were "Adult Education" (the second of four trades starring the Girl of Steel in the 31st century) and "Dominator War."
One TPB remains ("Quest for Cosmic Boy") but my comic shop did not have it, so that will have to be ordered at some point. Following this, there are two more TPBs of this version of the Legion, which I will also have to order, since the comic shop has very little "Legionalia."
What I really wanted to pick up tonight was Supergirl: Identity, which is the third TPB in the third Supergirl series. Unfortunately, that seems to have sold out not only of my comic shop (and it was there three weeks ago -- ARGH!), but also of everywhere else for some reason. I'm not sure why there is suddenly a "run" on that particular TPB, but I may have to wait a while before I can continue collecting that series -- or else try to buy the individual comics, which are issues 10-19 of that series. It's an option (they are not that expensive), but I'm really trying to stick with TPBs this time around (I would have for the Peter David series but there really aren't any TPB versions of that one).
Well, that's it for NCN this week. Next week there should be three or four new titles to pick up (JLA, JL, Supergirl, and possibly Katana).
Saturday, April 6, 2013
The death of the 'series' concept
As I looked over a picture of the upcoming "Trinity War" mega-crossover in DC, and pondered the idea of many books I'm reading having yet another crossover after having already been through one this year, a thought came to me: the traditional concept of the comic-book series is dead, at least in +DC Comics and +Marvel Entertainment . Truly, with very few exceptions, there is no such thing, anymore, as a comic-book series.
This may sound crazy to you, because series nominally do still exist. They have names, editors, creative teams, logos, sequential numbering, and everything, just like they always did. And yet, my claim today is, that these are series only in name, and not in actual fact.
First of all, let's get our definitions straight. What do I mean by a "series" - how do I define it? I define a comic-book series, to paraphrase the definition of a TV series on Dictionary.com, as an ongoing, regularly published comic-book title with three traits:
Every single comic-book series when I was growing up met this definition.
The reason I argue that hardly any "series" meet this definition today is that almost none of them meet all three criteria, and many only meet the very first. That is, most series do have a consistent cast of characters -- the Batgirl series is pretty much about Batgirl, and a few of her friends/family. But for many titles, that trait (consistent characters) is the only one they can claim. Many series have had rapidly changing creative teams (Superman had three different teams in 13 issues), although some, like Batgirl, have had a relatively stable team.
But the second criterion is where the "series" of today no longer make the cut. They lack a coherent, continuing story that gradually progresses from issue to issue. And the reason why they lack a continuing story is the insistence by +DC Comics and +Marvel Entertainment to have multi-title crossovers every few months. These crossovers are not self-contained, but spill over into every title, often for many months, and can de-rail or even utterly destroy the thread of continuity in the individual title.
Don't get me wrong: I like a good crossover now and then. But the comic-book companies do it entirely too much these days. To see what I mean, let's use the New 52 Batgirl series (one of my favorites, thanks to the scripting of Gail Simone) as an example. To date, 19 issues (if we include #0) of this title have been released. Out of those 19 issues, 9 (or nearly half) have been part of crossovers, or had their stories strongly impacted by crossovers. Issue 9 was a "Night of the Owls" Bat-family crossover. Issue 11 was a Knightfall Bat-family crossover, and issue 12 was the aftermath of Knightfall. Issues 13-16 were Batgirl's part in the "Death of the Family" crossover, and issue 17 was the aftermath of DOF. Issue 18 was part of the "Requiem" for the death of Robin. In all, as I say, this is nearly half (47%) of all Batgirl issues to date -- meaning that only half of the issues can possibly be part of "a continuing story that gradually progresses from issue to issue."
And now, DC is getting ready to publish the Trinity War, which will probably consume most of the summer, which means even more issues will be crossover tie-ins rather than stories specifically about Batgirl.
Therefore, the concept of the comic-book series has altered. No longer do we have a continuing story about the same set of characters by a relatively stable creative team. What we have instead can be thought of as a container of sorts.... the Batgirl, Batman, and Nightwing comics are a delivery system, a vehicle by which crossovers can be brought to the reader. This seems to be the main purpose for which comics exist. Telling their own story month in, month out, about a small set of characters, no longer seems to be the job of these titles. Instead, the series is used by the comic company to set up and portray crossovers. All titles revolve now, not around their characters, but around whatever crossover is going on at the time (because there's always another one getting ready to come out, another one for which the title has to "prep").
There are happily some exceptions to the rule. Wonder Woman, so far, has remained a series despite what the rest of the DC Universe is doing. And the smaller companies, like Image and Dynamite, seem perfectly happy to produce series -- often completely stand-alone series that have nothing to do with the rest of their "universe." But these are the exceptions, and they are few and far between. By far the bulk of comic-books are simply vehicles whose purpose is to deliver crossover content to the reader.
The other readers out there must like this new formula, the "title as a crossover venue" approach, because otherwise I imagine the companies wouldn't do it. I guess if you don't care all that much about the actual characters, the incessant crossing over would be fine. But for those of us who become attached to, and grow to love and enjoy reading about, specific characters like Batgirl, having her series constantly be interrupted by stories that really have nothing directly (or sometimes even indirectly) to do with her is frustrating in the extreme.
If you're a fan of the true series concept, there really is no remedy at this point, unfortunately. The bigger companies long ago embraced the "crossover after crossover" model of marketing. It's what they do now. The only option is to go for the titles produced by smaller companies. And I'm starting to do just that.
Years ago, I gave up comic-books in part because of this very issue -- because each series I was collecting kept being dragged into one crossover after another, and the storyline of each title suffered as a result. I'm obviously sad, but certainly not surprised, to see this pattern has not changed for +DC Comics or +Marvel Entertainment, but I think the solution isn't to give up comics. Rather, it's to find some titles produced by independent companies, or titles the big companies are willing to allow to stand alone, and follow those. Dynamite's Red Sonja series is an excellent example of the former, and Wonder Woman (so far) of the latter.
As for Trinity War.... like most mega-crossovers since probably the late 1980s (when they first started doing them), I will do my best to ignore it. If there are special issues or a limited series called "Trinity War," I will probably not buy them. When the TW issues of those titles I collect come out, I will buy them, read them, accept that I will be confused since I am only reading a tiny portion of the story, bag them, probably never read them again, and wait until it's over. And if it lasts long enough, some of my pull list titles will probably get dropped, and replaced by independent titles.
This may sound crazy to you, because series nominally do still exist. They have names, editors, creative teams, logos, sequential numbering, and everything, just like they always did. And yet, my claim today is, that these are series only in name, and not in actual fact.
First of all, let's get our definitions straight. What do I mean by a "series" - how do I define it? I define a comic-book series, to paraphrase the definition of a TV series on Dictionary.com, as an ongoing, regularly published comic-book title with three traits:
- it has the same cast of characters
- it has a continuing story that gradually progresses from issue to issue; and
- it has a relatively stable creative team.
Every single comic-book series when I was growing up met this definition.
The reason I argue that hardly any "series" meet this definition today is that almost none of them meet all three criteria, and many only meet the very first. That is, most series do have a consistent cast of characters -- the Batgirl series is pretty much about Batgirl, and a few of her friends/family. But for many titles, that trait (consistent characters) is the only one they can claim. Many series have had rapidly changing creative teams (Superman had three different teams in 13 issues), although some, like Batgirl, have had a relatively stable team.
But the second criterion is where the "series" of today no longer make the cut. They lack a coherent, continuing story that gradually progresses from issue to issue. And the reason why they lack a continuing story is the insistence by +DC Comics and +Marvel Entertainment to have multi-title crossovers every few months. These crossovers are not self-contained, but spill over into every title, often for many months, and can de-rail or even utterly destroy the thread of continuity in the individual title.
Don't get me wrong: I like a good crossover now and then. But the comic-book companies do it entirely too much these days. To see what I mean, let's use the New 52 Batgirl series (one of my favorites, thanks to the scripting of Gail Simone) as an example. To date, 19 issues (if we include #0) of this title have been released. Out of those 19 issues, 9 (or nearly half) have been part of crossovers, or had their stories strongly impacted by crossovers. Issue 9 was a "Night of the Owls" Bat-family crossover. Issue 11 was a Knightfall Bat-family crossover, and issue 12 was the aftermath of Knightfall. Issues 13-16 were Batgirl's part in the "Death of the Family" crossover, and issue 17 was the aftermath of DOF. Issue 18 was part of the "Requiem" for the death of Robin. In all, as I say, this is nearly half (47%) of all Batgirl issues to date -- meaning that only half of the issues can possibly be part of "a continuing story that gradually progresses from issue to issue."
And now, DC is getting ready to publish the Trinity War, which will probably consume most of the summer, which means even more issues will be crossover tie-ins rather than stories specifically about Batgirl.
Therefore, the concept of the comic-book series has altered. No longer do we have a continuing story about the same set of characters by a relatively stable creative team. What we have instead can be thought of as a container of sorts.... the Batgirl, Batman, and Nightwing comics are a delivery system, a vehicle by which crossovers can be brought to the reader. This seems to be the main purpose for which comics exist. Telling their own story month in, month out, about a small set of characters, no longer seems to be the job of these titles. Instead, the series is used by the comic company to set up and portray crossovers. All titles revolve now, not around their characters, but around whatever crossover is going on at the time (because there's always another one getting ready to come out, another one for which the title has to "prep").
There are happily some exceptions to the rule. Wonder Woman, so far, has remained a series despite what the rest of the DC Universe is doing. And the smaller companies, like Image and Dynamite, seem perfectly happy to produce series -- often completely stand-alone series that have nothing to do with the rest of their "universe." But these are the exceptions, and they are few and far between. By far the bulk of comic-books are simply vehicles whose purpose is to deliver crossover content to the reader.
The other readers out there must like this new formula, the "title as a crossover venue" approach, because otherwise I imagine the companies wouldn't do it. I guess if you don't care all that much about the actual characters, the incessant crossing over would be fine. But for those of us who become attached to, and grow to love and enjoy reading about, specific characters like Batgirl, having her series constantly be interrupted by stories that really have nothing directly (or sometimes even indirectly) to do with her is frustrating in the extreme.
If you're a fan of the true series concept, there really is no remedy at this point, unfortunately. The bigger companies long ago embraced the "crossover after crossover" model of marketing. It's what they do now. The only option is to go for the titles produced by smaller companies. And I'm starting to do just that.
Years ago, I gave up comic-books in part because of this very issue -- because each series I was collecting kept being dragged into one crossover after another, and the storyline of each title suffered as a result. I'm obviously sad, but certainly not surprised, to see this pattern has not changed for +DC Comics or +Marvel Entertainment, but I think the solution isn't to give up comics. Rather, it's to find some titles produced by independent companies, or titles the big companies are willing to allow to stand alone, and follow those. Dynamite's Red Sonja series is an excellent example of the former, and Wonder Woman (so far) of the latter.
As for Trinity War.... like most mega-crossovers since probably the late 1980s (when they first started doing them), I will do my best to ignore it. If there are special issues or a limited series called "Trinity War," I will probably not buy them. When the TW issues of those titles I collect come out, I will buy them, read them, accept that I will be confused since I am only reading a tiny portion of the story, bag them, probably never read them again, and wait until it's over. And if it lasts long enough, some of my pull list titles will probably get dropped, and replaced by independent titles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)