Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2018 13:19:42 GMT -5
I've been dismayed for a while over comic companies' renumbering of titles, especially when it appears they cannot make their minds up (Marvel reverted to legacy numbering a while back, but then resumed with renumbering).
I have to ask, how important, if at all, is high numbering in comics? For me, it's an issue I feel strongly about.
Before I say why, I am aware that high numbers, in and of themselves, don't equate to quality. The 645th issue of a title could feature, subjective though it all is, a poor story and poor art. And a title could be published because it's an important "flagship title" for a company, so even if it's limping along after 600 or 700 issues, that is no indication of quality.
But I do think high numbers are important.
For starters, there's the history. When I picked up the 500th issue of Batman (1990s), although the story was the most important thing, I was aware that I was reading a book that both my father and stepfather may have read (I know they read some superhero stories). There is that "Wow!" factor to a high number. It shows that there is a character or title that truly has stood the test of time.
On a superficial level, I think it's pretty cool to pick up a comic and see that it's reached 500 or 600 issues.
However, there's a more practical reason why high numbers work for me - and that's about accessing them via back issue bins, comiXology, etc. It makes them easier to look for.
Try looking for Wolverine #1. Good luck! Type that into comiXology and you're likely to have several coming up. Or if you're browsing the catalogue of a bricks-and-mortar comic store. Or eBay. It's a long, hard road to finding the one you want.
Now try searching for Batman #309. If you put that into the search box of eBay or comiXology, and assuming it is available, you should find it quickly. That's a practical reason for high numbers.
There can be confusion. I take responsibility for what I am about to say, but I bought the Darth Vader trade recently (the title that launched in 2015). And then the second trade. I then picked up the third trade. Oops! Wrong trade! It appears the title relaunched - and I was picking up the third trade of the second volume rather than the third trade of the first volume.
My mistake. I should have checked. But comic publishers aren't entirely blameless. Even Waterstones had put the trades in the wrong order. If a lot of superhero comics were allowed to simply continue original numbering, it might make it easier to track down certain trades/books. What works for The Walking Dead and 2000 AD would surely work for superhero comics, right?
With my Vader example, it means I thought I was getting the third volume and continuing the arc, but I wasn't. It was a little inconvenient.
And collecting trades/tracking down back issues should not be akin to homework. It really shouldn't. If I want to pick up a particular Wolverine issue via comiXology or eBay, such as the first issue, there should only be one first issue to track down, not a dozen 'first' issues since the late 90s.
The renumbering does seem a little futile. If they're going to keep doing it, certain publishers should abolish it, altogether. And simply have a month and year on the cover.
I'd also like to add that I am not convinced by the theory that new #1 issues attract new fans. Is there any evidence of this? And even if there is evidence, the key question is this: if a new #1 attracts new readers, does it retain them? Do those new readers stay on board? I really am not convinced.
Okay, a lot of points there - how I wish I could stay in one lane at times - but I know you'll all have something worthy to say.
I have to ask, how important, if at all, is high numbering in comics? For me, it's an issue I feel strongly about.
Before I say why, I am aware that high numbers, in and of themselves, don't equate to quality. The 645th issue of a title could feature, subjective though it all is, a poor story and poor art. And a title could be published because it's an important "flagship title" for a company, so even if it's limping along after 600 or 700 issues, that is no indication of quality.
But I do think high numbers are important.
For starters, there's the history. When I picked up the 500th issue of Batman (1990s), although the story was the most important thing, I was aware that I was reading a book that both my father and stepfather may have read (I know they read some superhero stories). There is that "Wow!" factor to a high number. It shows that there is a character or title that truly has stood the test of time.
On a superficial level, I think it's pretty cool to pick up a comic and see that it's reached 500 or 600 issues.
However, there's a more practical reason why high numbers work for me - and that's about accessing them via back issue bins, comiXology, etc. It makes them easier to look for.
Try looking for Wolverine #1. Good luck! Type that into comiXology and you're likely to have several coming up. Or if you're browsing the catalogue of a bricks-and-mortar comic store. Or eBay. It's a long, hard road to finding the one you want.
Now try searching for Batman #309. If you put that into the search box of eBay or comiXology, and assuming it is available, you should find it quickly. That's a practical reason for high numbers.
There can be confusion. I take responsibility for what I am about to say, but I bought the Darth Vader trade recently (the title that launched in 2015). And then the second trade. I then picked up the third trade. Oops! Wrong trade! It appears the title relaunched - and I was picking up the third trade of the second volume rather than the third trade of the first volume.
My mistake. I should have checked. But comic publishers aren't entirely blameless. Even Waterstones had put the trades in the wrong order. If a lot of superhero comics were allowed to simply continue original numbering, it might make it easier to track down certain trades/books. What works for The Walking Dead and 2000 AD would surely work for superhero comics, right?
With my Vader example, it means I thought I was getting the third volume and continuing the arc, but I wasn't. It was a little inconvenient.
And collecting trades/tracking down back issues should not be akin to homework. It really shouldn't. If I want to pick up a particular Wolverine issue via comiXology or eBay, such as the first issue, there should only be one first issue to track down, not a dozen 'first' issues since the late 90s.
The renumbering does seem a little futile. If they're going to keep doing it, certain publishers should abolish it, altogether. And simply have a month and year on the cover.
I'd also like to add that I am not convinced by the theory that new #1 issues attract new fans. Is there any evidence of this? And even if there is evidence, the key question is this: if a new #1 attracts new readers, does it retain them? Do those new readers stay on board? I really am not convinced.
Okay, a lot of points there - how I wish I could stay in one lane at times - but I know you'll all have something worthy to say.
