Luke, you forgot the Booster Gold showcase. That's from the 80s! In regards to "trade waiters" I've noticed the same thing Luke has. Large chunks of fandom have utter contempt for any other way to buy comics. I take a hybrid approach. If a book looks interesting, and there's a trade out, I'll pick it up to try it out. If I like it, I buy trades until I catch up, then buy the monthly issues. My only real problem with the entire concept of trade waiting is that whether a comic sinks or swims is based on circulation numbers. If a book sells below a certain number of issues per month, its in danger of getting axed. So if that number is 20,000 issues, and there were 30,000 people interested in that comic, and half of them wait for the trade, then that comic is unlikely to last. My 2 cents...
On Jul 20, 3:16 pm, Luke <[email protected]> wrote: > Regarding the timelines -- the b&w books almost entirely are reprints > of material from the 60s and 70s WITH THE EXCEPTION of X-Men and a few > other X-titles. Essential X-Men began reprinting starting from Giant > Size X-Men #1 (1975), and thus has run through the 70s and into the > 80s. Essential X-Factor and Essential Wolverine also reprint 80s > material because of when the comics were originally published. > > Marvel would eventually reprint the 1960s X-Men stuff as Essential > UNCANNY X-Men. > > Essential Avengers is know knee-deep in the 1970s just because of how > many volumes have been published, but it has not reached the 1980s > yet. > > On the DC side, the only one I know of which reprints 80s stuff in b&w > is Showcase Presents Batman And The Outsiders, although some of the > collections of The Brave And The Bold might be into the 80s now, I > don't know. > > ~Luke > > On Jul 20, 3:12 pm, Luke <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Jason, the black and white collections you saw are called either > > Essentials (for Marvel) or Showcase Presents (for DC), and a few other > > publishers use the format (such as Dark Horse). They collect usually > > about 20-25 issues and are black and white in order to keep the cost > > down. A 500+ page "phonebook" style collection will cost about $18, > > compared with ~$18 for six issues/~140 pages of color glossy pages in > > a regular collection. This latter style is what "waiting for the > > trade" is all about -- since six issues is the size the publishers > > want to collect, most authors "write for the trade" by making their > > stories six issues long, and the fans simply wait and buy the trades > > as they are released, getting a single story arc in each book. > > > The phonebooks are good for getting a LOT of stuff at once. It's a > > trade off with the color but for the price they net you a lot of > > comics, especially considering the age of the material. They tend to > > be used for bulk reprints of comics from the 60s and 70s (along with > > stuff originally in b&w, like Dark Horse's Savage Sword of Conan > > collections). If you want to give someone a lot of classic X-Men > > stories to read, for instance, that is a very economical way to do it. > > > I don't collect comics for the potential value. I collect comics > > because I like comics. I have several longboxes filled with just Iron > > Man comics because I love Iron Man. I don't want to wait for months > > or years to get Iron Man stories, and I don't want all of my comics in > > hardcovers or trades. I like the format of the periodical comic book > > and have since I was a kid reading Richie Rich comics. > > > But yes. There is a schism in the comic collectors world (I don't > > know of a more entitled fanbase expect possibly anime otaku) between > > those who need their "Wednesday fix" and "trade waiters." And it can > > get pretty nasty. One angle used by trade waiters is to say that > > those who buy the monthly issues are acting a barricade to the > > publishers simply publishing the stories as original graphic novels -- > > that is to say, putting out ~140 page collections twice a year instead > > of 12 22 page issues. Because they want to read their comics as > > trades so they assume that everyone does, and that we are dumb for NOT > > wanting our comics that way. > > > It goes both ways as well. Monthly buyers routinely blame the trade > > waiters for the death of "done in one" or other non-long form stories > > in comics. Since the trade waiters buy the 6 issue collections so > > readily, writers (as I mentioned earlier) tend to "write for the > > trade," often "decompressing" stories out so that they fit the > > length. So a story which traditionally could be told in two or three > > issues now is stretched out to six. And this is seen as "ruining" the > > industry. > > > So yeah. I bring a lot of bias on that front when I hear comics > > derided. That's my fault and no one elses. But I still dislike the > > term "pamphlet." > > > ~Luke > > > PS: Jason, regarding the b&w collections -- give one a shot. You > > might enjoy them. I fell in love with them in ~2002 when I got > > Essential Iron Man v.1, which reprinted something like the first 40 > > Iron Man stories from Tales of Suspense. > > > On Jul 20, 2:52 pm, Cary Preston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I stopped buying single issues when the quality of the writing and art > > > took a nosedive in my favorite titles. It's a pain to store all those > > > issues, too- I'd much rather have the collected trades so if I want to > > > reread the story arc (and I often do) it's in one volume that can be kept > > > on a bookshelf, instead of multiple Mylar bags in a longbox hidden in a > > > closet. > > > > On Jul 20, 2011, at 2:45 PM, Jason Service <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > i don't read comics any longer, haven't for probably 15+ years. That > > > > being said, it is established how "out of the loop" i am with regard to > > > > comics. > > > > > So have Trade paperbacks become "the thing" now? And when i say Trade > > > > paperback, is that the same thing as the collected group of single > > > > issues (or "pamphlets" as some are referring to them now based on the > > > > above...) that are not in color? > > > > > Last D*C i was looking for a good collected edition of X-Men for Dr Jen > > > > and all i saw were these (what i call trade paperbacks) which had maybe > > > > 10-15 issues of comics together but were not in color. I HATED that. If > > > > they are all just black and white that take a lot of the fun out of a > > > > comic...unless you want to give your kid a coloring book. > > > > > I have seen collected issues in color also, but those tend to be > > > > significantly more expensive, have fewer issues compiled together and > > > > the publishers still seem to go out of their way to do "silly shit" to > > > > them like making a foil cover or some such junk. > > > > > And Luke made mention that he is ridiculed for buying single issues, > > > > the implication being that he is propping up a dying relic. Really? > > > > Isn't there something to be said for collecting a comic any longer? If > > > > you get your comics in Trade Paperback or digital format there isn't > > > > the potential bonus of an issue actually increasing in value. > > > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Luke <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Oh and regarding "blog" -- I had a Livejournal for years, and never > > > > called it a "blog." It was my "journal" exclusively. Still is, even > > > > though I do not update anymore. > > > > > But my two sites on Blogger? I call them "blogs." Mostly because by > > > > the time I created them that was the accepted term and I never gave it > > > > much thought. Saying "my comics journal" or "my Hawkman journal" > > > > sound strange now. > > > > > ~Luke > > > > > On Jul 20, 2:02 pm, Luke <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I was operating from an incorrect assumption when I responded to Van > > > > > initially. Like all humans I bring my own preconceptions and biases > > > > > to a conversation. One of the reasons I abandoned CGS was the over- > > > > > abundance of "trade waiters" and their utter disdain for those of us > > > > > who bought "pamphlets" and were not "evolving" to the current market > > > > > by abandoning them entirely and were "propping up" a "dead" market. > > > > > > Nevermind the fact that now "spoiler range" extended literally for > > > > > months if not YEARS after a story ended because the majority of > > > > > posters were "waiting for the trade." > > > > > > I use the term "comics" almost exclusively. I only use "singles" in > > > > > the context of someone else buying a series in "trade." > > > > > > ~Luke > > > > > > On Jul 20, 1:43 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > It is weird how a term no one was using, (for 100 years we just > > > > > > called them comic books or comic book magazines), will suddenly > > > > > > become the "educated" way to discuss something. I also dislike the > > > > > > term "pamphlets," but kids who never owned any can view them from a > > > > > > distance and see them for the archaic old-media format they are. > > > > > > Since single issues is how I bought them for thirty years, I just > > > > > > saw them as comics and not as....product with a product's name. I > > > > > > thought I was a dude buying comics, but they see it as a "Male in > > > > > > Meatspace Transacting for Pamphlets" > > > > > > > Another term like this is "blog" People who didn't keep an online > > > > > > journal spread that one around, and then it was too late to fix it. > > > > > > What a gross and reductive word it is. > > > > > > > So, I think Van was just using a word he thought was up to date or > > > > > > what all the kids were using. He's obviously an old-school comics > > > > > > guy, but is keeping with the times. He's often very very wrong but > > > > > > I don't think he was pretentious here. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Luke <[email protected]> > > > > > > To: The Unique Geek <[email protected]> > > > > > > Sent: Wed, Jul 20, 2011 1:55 am > > > > > > Subject: [The Unique Geek] Re: Re DC new #1s giant hardcover coming > > > > > > > I regretted posting that message after I did because I posted in > > > > > > anger > > > > > > due to something else. Hence why I removed it. So my apologies. > > > > > > > My vehement objection is due partly to my bad mood. > > > > > > > It is also more attributed to the term being used as a perjorative > > > > > > by > > > > > > a lot (like, A LOT) of comics fans online to deride buying > > > > > > individual > > > > > > issues. The idea being that a "pamphlet" is disposable and without > > > > > > value. Over at ComicGeekSpeak, for example, that's essentially a > > > > > > codeword for "I buy in trades and if you don't you're a moron who is > > > > > > killing our industry." > > > > > > > As a side note, its not an accurate statement, at least not > > > > > > according > > > > > > to our wonderful federal government. A "pamphlet" by the definition > > > > > > of the Federal Depository Library Program is a monograph or what we > > > > > > would call a one-shot. Anything which is published on some regular > > > > > > basis is called a > > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Unique Geek" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/theuniquegeek?hl=en.
