G- I’m in my mid forties, and sometimes really miss picking up the latest Batman issue. But for all the incease in paper quality and coloring advances, the stories aren’t accesible. Maybe Trade Paperbacks are the wave of the future, but there was something about that collection of boxes I had that was kinda cool.

You start with one issue, and ad otehrs, and eventually you have this pile of comics, and then you discover these special boxes, ( just for comics!) and it’s a long term thing. It was cool having a complete collection of Batman from 300 to 500.

I’m glad for collections of earlier stuff. Neal Adams collected, or the Showcase volumes. It is nice to put these things on shelves, and it is easier to re read and re find stories. Bjut it’s not quite the same. ANd it never will be, because of something you mentioned.

You wanted to pick up an issue of X-Men because of the cartoon. As I am sure some people would do because of the movie. So now the characters spawn movies, TV shows, videos, whatever, and these are consumed in mass quantities.

It used to be the comics that were mass consumed. So I wonder what is wrong with comics that the msses have left them. Today’s best sellers have circulation numbers that would have gotten a book cancelled 20 years ago.

I don’t have any answers. I agree that the distribution sucks. Comic Shops are not inviting to new readers, and staff aren’t trained to be retail salespeople, they are comic geeks who have gotten their dream job. (short of producing comics, at least they are in the industry).

I miss the days of spinners of comics in every grocery, convenience and Wal Mart type store. Tremendous exposure of the medium, and reading them was more accepted. Now it seems like comics shops are almost like porn shops in that only weirdos go into them. (I’m not saying that’s the case, just the perception)

I find the discussions and topics interesting on this web site. It hasn’t made me want to buy a current issue of any comic, the industry has probably lost me forever on monthy issues. I will pick up some trades, but it won’t be convoluted carnage like Final Crisis, or Civil War, Or One More Day, or almost any of the “hot” books currently.

If they want a reset, why don’t they do it each decade. January 1st, 2010. Start all over again. On all the titles. LIke they seem to be planning with the Ultimate Comics… Marvel seem particularly bad at resetting one title out of synch with the rest…

Anyway, it’s my “Scott and Jean”… It doesn’t have to be rational!

I don’t know how old you are, so I can’t speak to your generation. I’m 25. Sometime in middle school, I went to a comic book store for the first time, trying to figure out how to read an X-Men book that would feed my love for those characters, born from the TV show. I went to the store, no one offered to help me, and there were what seemed like dozens of different X-Men books. I picked up one, and it was confusing…Magneto was in a coma, Colossus seemed to be on Magneto’s side…I put it back and have never tried to get involved in continuity again. So maybe you’re right, maybe today’s comics with their infinite backstory are offputting to young readers.

But I’m a pretty obsessive comics reader now. That’s because my roommate lent me Sandman freshman year of college. I went from there to Moore and Miller, and the forward to Ennis, Ellis, Vaughan, Brubaker, and yes, above all, Morrison. Along the way, I also discovered a love for a different tradition of comics, and thus books by Eisner, Spiegelmann, Robinson, Thompson, Lemire, Tomine, Ware, and Clowes sit on my shelf next to those other guys. But as I mentioned before, (with the exception of my sad habit of Morrison) you won’t find any mainstream (ie Big 2 Company owned characters) ongoing superheroics on my shelf. They’re still not interesting to me, and I can’t really imagine anyway to make them interesting to young readers. I’d be happy if those comics just died, and every book ever written about Batman was an “elseworlds” that no one pretended was actually happening in semi-real time as the same universe as Superman and Detective Comics (how does Batman solve so many cases) etc. I’ve always thought, if you want new readers to jump in, tell real stories, only tell stories when you actually have a story to tell, and tell everything in OGN format, because new readers do not want to be surrounded by dozens of cardboard boxes filled with generic superhero stories told because DC has to publish 24 stories a year about Batman and because Marvel has to tell 100 stories a year about the X-Men.

Most of my friends my age have this exact same view of comics – you can get them to read DKR or Y easily, and they love them, but you couldn’t get them to read a single issue of, say, Detective Comics, to save your life. Personally, I think that’s fine.

“You can’t verify a bias, therefore it is not a valid argument.” I can see how you could see that but I was attempting to argue not that it wouldn’t be a valid argument, which it is, but rather that it wouldn’t be a SOUND argument, at least not without proof.

As for finding such an inconsistency, which I think would be a very difficult task, that would be proof of bias, which is all I was asking for. So if you did find proof it would be reasonable to point out such a bias.

Perhaps we should say pointing out a bias isn’t inappropriate, pointing out a bias without proof is inappropriate, which is something I think we can all agree on.

Of course if I person was to call themselves biased, that would be a whole different matter.

It’s like asking, “Is Batman really staying dead?”

If someone praises Writer X for something that they criticize Writer Y for, then sure, you complain about it – I’d never dream of suggesting someone shouldn’t point out stuff like that.

That’s not ascribing motivations, that’s just pointing out an inconsistency.

But if you DON’T have anything substantial like that, then don’t make the charge – and my complaint is that the charge is constantly made withOUT anything of substance behind it, and if you don’t have anything to verify your charge, you ARE then ascribing motivations, and that’s lame.

I like dark stories. I like “fun” stories. I like blood and sex. I like nostagic innocence. I like shock value. I like continuity. I like stories that disregard continuity as long as they’re interesting. I like tragic stuff happening to heroes. I like to see the heroes winning too. I like it all. Really, the only thing that bothers me? It’s fans that are fanatically commited to a monobloc vision.

It really doesn’t matter what is their preference, it’s their one-track tastes that bother me. In the 1990s, I hated the kewl angry young fans that wanted everything to be dark dark dark. Nowadays, I hate the old fogeys that want everything to be fun fun fun. My “Scott and Jean” is diversity. I want to be able to read Agents of Atlas and then jump right back to my re-read of Brian Bendis’ Alias.

An example: I love almost everything Morrison has ever written, but can’t quite get into his JLA run. But if someone loved All-Star Superman and New X-Men, but didn’t much care for The Filth and Invisibles, I’d say “You know, I didn’t love JLA, but it’s probably right up your alley.” What’s wrong with that?”

Because you wouldn’t say it if Geoff Johns had written it!

No good marks are given unless something is above and beyond good.

I think “good” should suffice, but yeah, that’s about right, and I think that’s a fine goal to shoot for.

I don’t like the idea of ever recommending something that’s “okay.” We should expect more from comics. Comics should be, you know…

Maybe the reason that comics aren’t being read by teenagers, is that the things that drew us into the medium as teenagers is gone. For all the wonderful storytelling of Miller and Moore, the guys trying to copy what they did (and not doing it well) took the books and characters in places and directions that made them unappealing at best, and unaccessable at worst for the next generation.

The cry for “better comics, more adult comics” limited the audience, and resulted in the next generation not being able to jump on board like most of us did. So then a more juvenile line is created, with the animation style artwork, that may have had good story telling, but the art style could also be a turn off as too juvenile for new readers.

The move away from self contained stories with limited subplots to ongoing sagas makes jumping on for a new reader almost impossible. Episodic narratives still have to have stories for each episode. Most television series can be jumped into at almost any point. That’s how comics used to be.

Today’s comics are like 24, or Lost. So filled with back story that stepping in mid stream is difficult. The reader is filled with too many questions, and can’t understand the dynamics easily. This works great fro a limited series, where the reader knows he’s stepping into the middle of something, but for an ongoing series, it doesn’t work so well.

I’m guessing you meant bias held towards people rather than by people, but I don’t really see how that isn’t just another type of motivation.

Lets look at this analytically. What we are essentially saying is that people have a sort of objective view on the merit of a comic, then a cognitive bias prevents them from seeing this objective view and the opinion delivered is not then the reader’s own. Thus the reader’s opinion of the comic is worthless, because they don’t even agree with themselves.

The problem isn’t whether such biases are TRUE, as they almost certainly are at times, but whether they are VERIFIABLE. If you can’t prove that someone’s view is biased, and it doesn’t matter if it is a personal or political or emotional bias, then it is UNFAIR to belittle there view because of it.

Sure such biases exist, what I believe Brian was saying is that we just shouldn’t accuse people of them.

No good marks are given unless something is above and beyond good.

Who was recommending stuff they didn’t was good?

I’ve seen you mention it several times, but never really seen a reviewer ever do it.

I know, it sounds so absurd now, doesn’t it?

But I assure you, in 2004, I saw it frequently on message boards. It was basically a sort of “coddling” deal that I really hated. Like someone would go through a review, pointing out all these bad things and then end with, like, “B+!” It was so annoying.

But yeah, I see less of it nowadays, and certainly so little that I don’t feel the need to mention it to any contributors.

Man, I said I was sorry! Why do you torment me so, Dread Lord and Master?!?!?!?

(Actually, I’m not sure if I ever said I was sorry. I kind of suck that way.)

I promise, I was not thinking of you while writing this at all! Honest!

Going a completely different way, I’m confused as to why you think it’s bad to recommend something that you don’t think is good. Isn’t recommending something that you don’t think is good a sign of maturity and the ability to view others’ points of view?

Sure.

I meant only when people would recommend something in a sort of coddling manner. “It wasn’t a very good comic book, but eh, I’ll give it 3 out of 4 stars!” or some such nonsense.

You certainly should be able to recommend works that while not to your particular sensibilities are still “good” works.

(Actually, I’m not sure if I ever said I was sorry. I kind of suck that way.)