Comic Book Resources

If people vote for a specific run, then yeah, you should assign the points to a specific run. Frank Miller’s first DD run is not his second, and it’s not really fair for one to succeed on the merits of the other, and not its own.

I agree with Michael.

I don’t think the writer should be able to rest on the laurels of their previous work.

I think you should count them as seperate runs. Miller on Daredevil should be Miller’s first run…when we was the entire creative team writer and illustrator (no disrespect to Klaus Janson intended)as you established in your original post.

Miller as just an illustrator for McKenzie or as just a writer as is the Born Again story line are entirely different monsters…..same as Peter David on X-Factor

Right, I’m pretty sure I voted for David’s X-Factor (the 1st one), and I clarified that it was his first run. I haven’t read his second run yet and though I heard it’s good, I didn’t feel right voting for it. So I don’t really want my vote counting towards it.

yuk…..got intrigued when I saw “RUNS list”…..not the “runs list” I was hoping for….
Joking…..

I think this is the sort of thing you should do on a case-by-case basis, with notations, as you do above. I would imagine that most people voting for “Miller’s Daredevil” meant his first run, and the two should probably be counted together. In other cases, where there’s a clear stylistic or temporal gap between the runs - as with “David’s X-Factor,” they should be counted separately.

Bottom line, go with your gut.

I’m with Michael.

Definitely separate.

Seperate, definitely. Returns to books can be better or worse, and need not resemble each other at all. See Dark Knight Strikes Again.
And I certainly wouldn’t group a new Byrne FF run if he were to do one. There’s something magical about something done in a particular time, in a particular context - the original Peter David X-Factor run was partially so exceptional because of what was going on in the other x-books at the time.

I think that you should compromise. If combined, both volumes of PAD’s X-Factor is #15 on the list, but separate they are #34 + #59, I think you should place it at #15, but indicate that it’s a combined score. Especially if some people voted for both, some voted for one, and some voted for the other - since you’ll have trouble figuring out how to count the votes for both. (Personally, I voted for V.2 + Madrox Mini, since I see them as complimentary. I intended for them to be counted together - Neither are as good separately as they are together.)

That WOULD be how it would go, Mordy - ranking them together and indicating where the points came from for each.

But would that be fair to the people around them?

For instance, using your numbers, would it accurate/fair to call PAD’s X-Factor the 15th favorite run when it was made up of two separate runs (separated by over a decade)? Is that fair to the run that comes in 16th in that scenario?

Separate Why? “Claremont’s X-Men.”

Separate, definitely. If Byrne and Claremont came back to the Uncanny X-Men title now, it clearly wouldn’t be as good as the first run considering Claremont is not on top of his game anymore.

Damn, do I want to play devil’s advocate here, but you just can’t argue the logic of Patrick’s Claremont comment. A writer’s run on a book from one block to the next cah be such a huge difference, that you have to count it separately.

It can be something as neat and clean as “good Claremont/bad Claremont”, or it can be murkier, like Miller’s return to Daredevil for “Born Again,” or Waid’s runs on Captain America.

But on the other hand, does the Ennis/Simpson run on Hellblazer count as different from the Ennis/Dillon run, even with the change in artists and, as a result, style and tone? Where is the line drawn? Maybe there should be a ruling: if there’s at least a one-year break from being on the book, then it’s separate runs.

I guess what I’m saying is, I’m so glad I’m not the one who has to figure this list out. But I am quite looking forward to it.

I was one of the people who voted for Miller/Mazzuchelli and I very specifically selected that as opposed to Miller’s earlier run because I think it’s one of the best comics runs ever and even better than Miller’s earlier work. So yeah, they should count separately.

I’m going to go the other way and suggest to combine the two.

I mean, unless there are a lot of people who voted for both runs, separately. Otherwise, you are really punishing the more popular run on the merits of the less just as much as rewarding the less popular run on the merits of the more.

Theno

I’m with Mordy. The Claremont argument doesn’t matter, because that shouldn’t be a problem if people are following the rules.

Of course you have to count them as separate runs. They’re separate.

There’s a BIG difference between “Claremont’s X-Men” and the “Claremont/Byrne” X-Men……with Byrne co-plotting (without the proper credit)

Of course, the Clairmont run gets consideration my artist due to the length of the run, so it’s just not an equal comparison.

I’m with the camp saying to keep the results separate.

What COULD be done is dual listings. Using the example of the combined Miller DD coming in at #15, put 2 #15 entries: the combined Miller DD with an asterix or in parenthesis and the stand-alone #15. Then list the separate runs in their proper #38 & #59 spots. In this way you can ALMOST keep both camps happy.

I like that idea, avengers63!! I think I’ll go with that (well, a variation of it).

If someone lists a specific run, that’s what they’re voting for. If you amalgamate separate runs, you’re making people vote for runs they may not think are all that great. Which is much more of a problem than your concern about taking votes away from someone’s “overall” work.
After all, the question was “favourite runs”, not “favourite creator on a book” which you’re more or less making it into if you amalgamate runs that people have specifically voted for as separate and distinct. Especially in the case of non-consecutive runs, the votes for which should absolutely not be amalgamated no matter what.

I’m the minority voice here, but I’d rather separate runs were combined when it’s the same creators and the same characters (with notes in parenthesis saying how many votes came from each separate run).

It seems like this should have been defined prior to voting.

Some people may have meant “Miller’s Daredevil run” to include ‘Born Again’, since it is the single Miller Daredevil story which is most often referred to. Other people may have specifically meant just the initial stories. Some people may mean Miller’s Daredevil run to include the issues on which he just did art (”Volume One” of the Visionaries book). I think the best issue of DD Miller ever wrote was #219 — but that can’t fit in at all! (Can it?)

Seems like you should’ve solicited more specific votes, possibly including explicit issue numbers for clarity’s sake.

I don’t see what’s so counter-intuitive about saying which specific run one is talking about when voting.

Although I haven’t submitted my list yet (I’ve got a few more days…), I started with the assumption that I had to specify co-creators or issue number ranges etc. if a creator had multiple runs (especially non-consecutive ones, unless someone is just briefly interrupted by a fill-in) or a very long run of variable quality (like Claremont on the X-Men).
We were asked for favourite runs, not favourite creator & book combinations. There is a difference.

Oh, and the link in this post to the main poll post is messed up.

We were asked for favourite runs, not favourite creator & book combinations. There is a difference.

Some “separate” runs are very similar in style and theme. Michelinie and Layton’s runs on Iron Man, for instance. Apart from some details, they could as well have been consecutive.

Claremont is a different case, admitedly. He wrote more than 100 issues of Uncanny X-Men, so according to Brian’s rules it’s already mandatory to match him with an artist, so you already got his run broken into several sub-runs.

“Some “separate” runs are very similar in style and theme.”

Then the onus is on the voter to specify their amalgamation, rather than expect that a vague reference to artist & title is to be understood as such.

I agree with Jack Norris wholeheartedly. We were specifically asked to vote on our favourite runs, not our favourite creators. I voted for Miller/Mazzucchelli’s Daredevil run and Miller’s solo run as writer/artist. If you amalgamate my two votes into one, then Miller wil end up receiving more points from me than my number one choice, which would hardly be a true reflection of my voting intentions.

Furthermore, any amalgamation will have the effect of downplaying the role of artist for a comic’s success. Lee/Dikto’s Spiderman is a very different beast to Lee/Romita’s Spiderman.

I say count them separately.

I still have to vote — Brian, what is the code you want us to use in the comments section again? That is where you want us to vote, right? Or should I send you my choices via e-mail?

It is ACBC, John.

And yes, in the comments section of the initial entry.

Here is the link - http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2008/03/01/comics-should-be-goods-top-100-comic-book-runs/

Thanks for voting!

I agree with Jack Norris wholeheartedly. We were specifically asked to vote on our favourite runs, not our favourite creators. I voted for Miller/Mazzucchelli’s Daredevil run and Miller’s solo run as writer/artist. If you amalgamate my two votes into one, then Miller wil end up receiving more points from me than my number one choice, which would hardly be a true reflection of my voting intentions.

Had I gone with merged voting, I would have just counted whichever one got the higher vote total (and just moved every other vote on the list up).

It’s what I do when people make invalid choices - ignore it and move everything up one spot.

That said, I will be going with the separate counts - just with a notation somewhere to show how many total votes each one got, for the curious folks out there (of course, said curious folks could just add the two totals up themselves, but I’m nothing if not accommodating ;)).

So do I kick myself *now* for not being more specific, or do I wait until the 31st?

I think it should depend on whether it’s an actual run. In Miller’s case he only returned to the book for a special story arc, so I think it should be counted together. But when a writer comes back to a book for a long term commitment it should be a separate run.