The differences were that A) Fan-press publications were a lot less widely-read than the internet, and far more importantly, B) Shooter didn't really care that much because there were still a lot of NON-hardcore fans buying the books on newsstands. Now that we're the only ones left buying Marvel and DC superhero comics, the big two spend a lot more time trying to figure out what WE want and how to make sure we need to buy every book in the line. The constantly-rolling crossover serial, slot-machine mentality's part of that; it's a chicken-or-egg argument whether we trained the companies or they trained us, but that's the landscape we're left with. I tend to think we trained Marvel and DC to do comics that way, simply because companies follow the money. Art is the afterthought; they produce books that they think will sell.

Make of all that what you will; I make it that the "yearly crossover" thing is like trying to harvest your crops every three months. Eventually, all you're getting is bedrock.

I wonder, though, considering the amount of fun new books that are available, is the ratio of 'good' to 'bad' comics any worse than it was thirty years ago, or has the proliferation of comics blogs and the like-- and the tendency for said blogs to be used for the sort of 'the sky is falling and comics are dying!' arguments that fans have always been fond of-- made things seem worse than they are?

That's absolutely not a knock on this column or this blog, which points out far more good comics than bad ones- I mean, just look at the post directly above this one- but more the blogosphere in general.

But had, say, Jim Shooter been exposed to the level of internet fanboy exposure in the '80s that Joe Q is today, would we have such fond memories of '80s Marvel comics? Or would most fans with a keyboard have spent a disproportionate amount of their time knocking the bad titles the company put out?

I don't know.

Having said that, I realise it totally floats a lot of other people's boats, so I guess it's just a matter of sticking with the slot machines you enjoy.

And yeah, there ARE a lot of good comics, but they tend to be the exception, rather than the rule. Sadly enough, the analogy seems to work quite well for a lot of mainstream comics where people continue to buy, say, Spider-Man, because they like the character and, even though it's sucked for 3 years solidly now, it MIGHT get better next issue.

Cha-ching!

Morrison's work with Supes and Bats, Kubert's Action Comics run, Dini's done-in-one stuff... none of it's reinventing the wheel, necessarily, but I feel like I'm getting my money's worth out of the slot machine.

By the way, Pol, where was the journalism student from? It might be for the same course I interviewed you for last year.

Other than that, great analogy.