Tweet
>Which still begs the answer to the question which cover do I get when it's toilet paper printed on the inside?
They don't actually do the special-awesome-holofoil-ashcan-chocolatey-wonderful zillion cover thing so much any more. It scared away the speculators, who were the backbone of "mainstream" comic sales since the late 80's. Which answers your question: any, 'cos nobody was actually READING them. They were hoarding them 'cos one day my collection will be worth a zillion dollars; just like Action #1!
>long running episodic TV dramas have handled the perpetual nature of the main characters by introducing characters who could change by using guest stars as the focus of conflict
That used to be how the superheroes did it too; mostly through the villains. The bad guys can change; the heroes, not so much. It works for a while, as long as you can keep coming up with good bad guys; but even there you start seeing some repeats; especially for the more compact concept heroes. Back in the day they'd go way afield so's to expand the concept.... hence Batman: space cop.... but since the 80's and it's focus on hardcore continuity if you started doing that there'd be an endless hue and cry from the fans. The 90's added the designer comic wrinkle; and you see that still with the current books. The need to constantly go to the same baddies, the same storylines, the same handful of known characters. "Sales are down! Quick! Whip a little Batman on 'em!"
>Frank Miller effectively used a similar process with Gordon in Batman Year One and Elektra in Dare Devil.
Those are good examples 'cos they illustrate what you're getting at, and what I'm getting at. They were good stories, but they presented events: things that happened for the characters. Once you do that, you create a fixed point in time for the book/setting/characters. Not that this is a BAD thing; but for a perpetual story it becomes problematic because the nature of the product means you CAN'T have fixed points like that. It adds limits. So; if the love of the hero's life dies, you can EVENTUALLY have him find someone else just as meaningful.... you pretty much HAVE to, the romantic subplot is a requirement.... but the second won't have as much impact. The third, less so. The fourth, fifth.... and there WILL be a fourth and a fifth if the book runs long enough 'cos someone's gonna have an idea for a romantic plot, or a romatic rival, or a sad break up.... because a perpetual character isn't a character so much as a franchaise. And the death of the hero's greatest love is only a defining moment as long as the next writer says it is. As a long term fan you either suck it up or move on. Getting mad at the writers, editors or publishers doesn't help; it's not really their faults. It's the nature of the format.
>with arcs built for trades and hardbacks, long-running subplots have gone out of style.
Well.... they were only really in style for a decade or so, and that was mostly 'cos Marvel left Claremont on the X-Men for so long and stayed out of his way. Once the book took off everybody joined in. Until the 90's, when it was more important to get the current hot name on the book than to worry about content. The current trend of writing for the compilations shows the limits of a perpetual book because they make those aforementioned chronological hardpoints readily available.... which makes them even MORE fixed for the readers. Which makes the edits, redos and reboots even MORE obvious. Which doesn't fly with the current generation of comic fans. It's an attempt for the Big Two-ish to get into the bookstore market, which is where all the action's been for comics the last decade or so. Unfortunately for them they're trying to adapt an old technique to a new format; with mixed results.
Don C.
They don't actually do the special-awesome-holofoil-ashcan-chocolatey-wonderful zillion cover thing so much any more. It scared away the speculators, who were the backbone of "mainstream" comic sales since the late 80's. Which answers your question: any, 'cos nobody was actually READING them. They were hoarding them 'cos one day my collection will be worth a zillion dollars; just like Action #1!
>long running episodic TV dramas have handled the perpetual nature of the main characters by introducing characters who could change by using guest stars as the focus of conflict
That used to be how the superheroes did it too; mostly through the villains. The bad guys can change; the heroes, not so much. It works for a while, as long as you can keep coming up with good bad guys; but even there you start seeing some repeats; especially for the more compact concept heroes. Back in the day they'd go way afield so's to expand the concept.... hence Batman: space cop.... but since the 80's and it's focus on hardcore continuity if you started doing that there'd be an endless hue and cry from the fans. The 90's added the designer comic wrinkle; and you see that still with the current books. The need to constantly go to the same baddies, the same storylines, the same handful of known characters. "Sales are down! Quick! Whip a little Batman on 'em!"
>Frank Miller effectively used a similar process with Gordon in Batman Year One and Elektra in Dare Devil.
Those are good examples 'cos they illustrate what you're getting at, and what I'm getting at. They were good stories, but they presented events: things that happened for the characters. Once you do that, you create a fixed point in time for the book/setting/characters. Not that this is a BAD thing; but for a perpetual story it becomes problematic because the nature of the product means you CAN'T have fixed points like that. It adds limits. So; if the love of the hero's life dies, you can EVENTUALLY have him find someone else just as meaningful.... you pretty much HAVE to, the romantic subplot is a requirement.... but the second won't have as much impact. The third, less so. The fourth, fifth.... and there WILL be a fourth and a fifth if the book runs long enough 'cos someone's gonna have an idea for a romantic plot, or a romatic rival, or a sad break up.... because a perpetual character isn't a character so much as a franchaise. And the death of the hero's greatest love is only a defining moment as long as the next writer says it is. As a long term fan you either suck it up or move on. Getting mad at the writers, editors or publishers doesn't help; it's not really their faults. It's the nature of the format.
>with arcs built for trades and hardbacks, long-running subplots have gone out of style.
Well.... they were only really in style for a decade or so, and that was mostly 'cos Marvel left Claremont on the X-Men for so long and stayed out of his way. Once the book took off everybody joined in. Until the 90's, when it was more important to get the current hot name on the book than to worry about content. The current trend of writing for the compilations shows the limits of a perpetual book because they make those aforementioned chronological hardpoints readily available.... which makes them even MORE fixed for the readers. Which makes the edits, redos and reboots even MORE obvious. Which doesn't fly with the current generation of comic fans. It's an attempt for the Big Two-ish to get into the bookstore market, which is where all the action's been for comics the last decade or so. Unfortunately for them they're trying to adapt an old technique to a new format; with mixed results.
Don C.
Comment