Is there a rift between vintage and current comic book readers?

[shaxper]

It seems to me that there's far less overlap in current and vintage comic book readers than there ever has been in the past. Maybe that's just my perception, but I continually get that impression from the fellow readers I know on both sides. As someone trying to bridge the gap between the two, even I feel that reading a vintage issue after reading a current one requires a tremendous shifting of mental gears. Granted, the silver age was very different from the golden age and the bronze age was very different from the silver age, but something's different this time.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the rift is being caused by four things:

1. The deep complexity of the current DC and Marvel Universes. There's so much to read and pay attention to that it's hard to concentrate on stories outside of these current continuities.

2. Continuity shifts. Back in the day, people were inspired to read vintage issues partially because they were the building blocks of the current characters and storylines. It was breathtaking to see "where it all began". DC definitely has no relationship to its own bronze or silver age anymore, and is only begining to bring back the golden age in infinite crisis. Marvel still claims to adhere to its past continuity, but so much has changed, been retconned, or just plain forgotten that the current universe seems to have little relationship to the past. Nothing about the current titles from either publisher provide incentives for readers to go back and re-examine the past.

3. The over-hype of the '90s. So much of the appeal of reading and collecting vintage comics begins with seeing the recent past become both valuable and historically significant. With worthless dollar bin issues and stories that people are still trying to forget looming in the recent past, I think modern collectors feel divorced from the grand old days of vintage comic book collecting. It's hard to be inspired to appreciate the legacies of past ages when the most recent past age was a disgrace. And besides, if we're trying to retcon and ignore so many of the big stories that happened ten years ago (Hal Jordan as Spectre, the Spider-Man Clone fiasco, Azrael replacing Batman, Zero Hour, etc), continuity ceases to have much meaning or charm. Past history begins to have little relationship to the present. I guess this relates back to #2.

4. Cost. The cost of an individual issue ($2.50 to $5) is ludicrously high compared to what it was even ten years ago, and inflation has nothing to do with it. As recently as fifteen years ago, individual issues cost a mere seventy five cents, and it was still quite possible to read only a handful of titles without missing out on key continuity. As a result, there was plenty of disposable income left over for vintage purchases. Now we pay more per issue, are compelled to read more titles just to understand what's happening in regular Universe-wide events, and most of us feel compelled to spend an extra $1.20 per issue to store each one safely in high quality acid free bags and boards. Add to this an economy that hasn't been what it should be since the millenium and folks just can't afford vintage purchases anymore.


Well, those are my thoughts. Please add your own. I'm curious to hear other perspectives. If you agree with me that a rift does exist, do you think it can be overcome?

[MDG]

I think the main difference--and the four reasons you cite are either symptoms or causes of it--is that up until maybe the early 80s, comics were a mass medium like TV and movies. Now they are a specialty item for a specialty audience.

MDG

[scratchie]

Well, just to provide a counter-example, I started reading current comics because I had started reading vintage (Bronze age) comics again. I now buy five to ten current titles a week, and haven't suffered any noticeable cognitive dissonance yet from switching back and forth between the Bronze Age and the 21st Century. :D

I think you're underestimating how much both of the big two still draw on their classic stories. DC may be formally removed from its pre-1985 continuity, but their current big event is a direct tribute to (and reworking of) the classic JSA/JLA crossover stories in the past. The incident that sparked last year's Big Event (Identity Crisis) was, if I'm not mistaken, originally from a late-70s JLA story (where Zatanna mind-wipes the Secret Society).

And while Marvel may not slavishly adhere to every page of every issue of past continuity (and thank God for that!), they're still mining their classic 60s-70s-80s material, either in the core universe (the upcoming Annihilation featuring space-based characters from the 60s and 70s) or "remaking" it in the "Ultimate" line (e.g. the current Ultimate Galactus storyline or the recent introduction of the Inhumans to Ultimate Fantastic Four).

I have no idea whether younger readers of current comics have any interest in these old stories, but certainly, if someone were inclined to start collecting older comics, there's still plenty of material from the 80s and earlier that has links to current books.

[Theophilus]

DC has something that Marvel lacks when it comes to bridging the gap--Mark Waid and Jeph Loeb. Whether you like them or not, both seem to have an amazing grasp of DC history (especially Waid), and yet are competent writers in the modern style. So they kind of combine the best of both worlds. At least that's my take on them.

Marvel, on the other hand, gives me the impression lately that writers have basic concepts down in regard to the characters' history, but no clue about the better storylines and what they meant to readers. A recent example would be how Aunt May seems to have forgotten about her significant other, Nathan. He was killed by the Vulture. It's kind of an important connection, and her relationship with him was one of the most consistently satisfying subplots of the eighties.

[sheets]

The vast majority of what I buy now is reprints even though I'm not that old. I find I have trouble relating to what Marvel and DC mostly release now because so much of it crossover driven. Even when a book is announced that sounds intriguing to me, I'll often end up passing it over because you know the book is going to get dragged into a crossover that will try to force me to buy books I'd already have been buying had I been interested in them to begin with.

The other thing that occurs to me is that the storytelling methods aren't satisfying to me. Too many storylines that are dragged out for the sake of being dragged out, and many writers reject basic storytelling techniques because they feel they're too "comic booky"; e.g., thought balloons. The price of an issue isn't a big deal to me, but it becomes an concern when I feel like I'm getting less quality storytelling in one of those issues than I would have received in a quarter of an issue in something published in the old days.

[reader809]

I would buy comics if I thought the art was high quality. Look at the greats of the past like Frazetta, Wood, Kirby, Ditko, Kubert... Even those who called themselves cartoonists, like Jack Davis, knew how to draw and ink. I believe the current comic book artists are stylists driven by a desire to avoid the look of the comics of the 1960s.

No, I'm not saying all the art in comics from the 60s was great but it was closer to realistic illustration and high quality caricature. Quite a while ago, I spoke to Jim Steranko and told him I admired his anatomy, He replied: It's distorted. First, you have to know how to draw a real human figure before you can distort it.

It seems to me that the creative freedom being sought by some of the new talent while ignoring the lessons of the past is the problem. I think there is also the perception that now is not then and that magically, something "new" will appear. With rare exception, it hasn't. I look at Alex Ross' work and admire it, but the rest just suffers from a lack of drawing ability or a style that is difficult to look at.

Take the art book Spectrum. The common theme among the artists is the ability to draw well. Not to mention the various "art of" books, whether for Star Wars or the recent King Kong. I love the art because it's fantastic, beautifully rendered, and includes machines that are well thought out and seem plausible.

Unfortunately, the trend for creators in comics has been: get a job at Marvel or DC, get famous, an offer for more money comes along, leave. To see a new artist get started, grow and develop, and then leave a comic book is a disappointment. It's about time the big two started signing people to contracts.

And what is selling to the age group that comics were aimed at in the 1960s? Manga. Even though I don't like the art style, they are competently illustrated by people who understand visual storytelling, even though the stories themselves are simplistic (kind of like the comics of the 60s). And they sell a ton of them, in mainstream chain bookstores! Not comic shops.

And the 90s with the multiple covers and slabbing. Adding greed to the equation was a bad idea. I talked to a 12 year old in a comic book store back then who was buying a big stack of books. "You're a real collector." He said, "Nah, I don't read 'em. I just keep 'em for a while so when the price goes up I can sell them for big bucks."

It's kind of nice to see the names of all the creators on the cover of a book but it doesn't help the quality of the material inside. It's not nostalgia. If today's artists and writers don't look at what's gone before and do not listen to Editors and Publishers about what sells, since it might get in the way of their creative freedom, I will have no reason to buy comics.

For example, left to their own devices, other, better artists have disappeared or only do the occasional job here and there. Barry Windsor-Smith and Gorblimey Press, and Steranko, with ComicScene, MediaScene, MediaScene Prevues, Prevues...

I recently read an interview where a creator was talking about the "tyranny" of comic books: the type of paper, physical size, etc. Somehow, really talented people did cope and produced great work.


Ed

[scratchie]

I think there are a lot of good artists out there now. Maybe not as many "immortal greats" as in days gone by, but how could there be? The average artist is, in my opinion, at least as good as the average Bronze Age artist, and the overall ratio of "good to run-of-the-mill" artists is seems about the same as it ever was. I enjoy the artwork of Steve Epting, Mike McKone, Amanda Conner, Pascal Ferry and numerous others immensely. Maybe they don't compare to Kirby, Steranko, Colan, but who does? They're certainly "high quality", talented artists in their own right.

PS: Welcome to CBR, Ed! :)

[Sir Tim Drake]

Welcome to CBR, Ed.

[roach04]

Great topic for a post.

I don't know if rift is the correct term, but there is a big "divide" I think, yeah.

Not sure how to sum up my feelings, but many of them have already been echoed:

(1) Apparent lack of creator attachment. I know Jim Shooter loved the Legion. I know Mike Grell loved Warlord. I know Wolfman & Colon loved Dracula. Erik Larsen's column at CBR touched on this a few weeks back - now, you get just enough issues for a trade from a creative team and they're gone. It's not Newsrama-Wizard-whatever news if Mike and Joe stay on the same book for 3 or 4 years. That's a sad side-effect of internet driven media and it's hurt the quality of all books.

(2) Plot cohesiveness. In the 1980s, Marvel comics mastered this - and not to the degree of "lets tie-in all of our 82 titles every month for the next 3." Simple stuff - the Avengers would call Stark industries, but Tony was drunk and couldn't answer. One panel tied the universe together. Now you're likely to see an entire arc featuring characters who died in their own books in the same month!

(3) Reader lack of appreciation for history. This is a broad sweeping one and definitely not true in all cases. But when I was a kid, issue #1 of something didn't really appeal to me; I saw issue #402 in the banner and thought "Wow!" The 90s collector mentality, Marvel's constant renumbering, and, even DC's post-Crisis reboots impacted this to a large degree. With hollywood casting a blonde to play Mary Jane and a red-head to play Gwen Stacy, I can see how the younger generation of comic readers is confused, but still - appreciate and learn simple things like Darkseid inspired Thanos (not vice versa) and that the Kingpin was a Spider-Man villain!

I don't know. There are lots of ways to look at this, but I remember a sig that somebody has on Usenet that basically said "There are 38 issues of Spider-Man and 2 Annuals. Whatever happened after Ditko left is not Spider-Man. He may look and even talk like Spider-Man, but it's just a pale imitation." That's obviously a tad extreme, but sometimes (Crisis on Infinite Earths, current Marvel) I see how people can start to feel alienated by whoevers running the publishers of the day.

[Greg Hatcher]

Something that no one's touched on is the current trend of 'writing for the trade,' or 'decompressed' storytelling, or 'widescreen' comics, or whatever you want to call it. What this means to geezers like me is that individual issues of comics read too fast. I grew up reading comics structured with 6-7 panels a page and a lot of dense text. Now I blow through an issue of Ultimate something or other in 3-5 minutes, and then get really annoyed as I realize I'm out $2.50 for an entertainment experience that's basically over.

Fortunately, I reread my comics. So it's not quite as bleak as it sounds. But on the other hand, I think the rift is at least partially caused by the fact that modern comics are in a completely different rhythm than the one my generation expects. Frankly, they are in a manga-style rhythm, where the pace of a page is such that it takes a lot of pages to get from point a to point b. Now, you can get away with that kind of thing with a paperback book of a comic like you get from Viz or Tokyopop, $8.95 for 200 pages. But it's criminal to use that kind of rhythm and structure for a story in the standard 22-page U.S. format. Lately, it occurs to me every time I go to the shop that for $15, I can get six standard issues of a comic book from DC or Marvel, or I can order from a discount book site online and get an Essential or a Showcase, and have enough left over for a cup of coffee.

As far as story ideas, I dunno, I don't think qualitatively there's that big a difference between Infinite Crisis and the Kree-Skrull War. But the reason fans my age tend to think modern comics suck is because they're just not dense enough, the pacing feels completely wrong. That's my gut reaction any time I read something from Bendis or Ellis or any of these hot young fan favorites... "It's padded, they could have done this in seven pages." But it never bothers me when I'm reading the stuff in a collected edition.

My two cents.

[reader809]

For a while now, industry site icv2.com has been reporting on the top 50 graphic novels. Not Diamond Comics orders but orders sold to bookstores. How many American graphic novels are on the list? Two or three. The rest are manga.

I think everyone here knows how many comic book shops closed in the 90s. Marvel was bankrupt for a while.

I'm not suggesting anyone switch to manga. I'm not. For me, and a few other people I know, the "wow factor" is gone from comics.

Switching from my own perspective to that of what young people in their teens are reading now, it's manga. It doesn't matter if I don't like them. Walk into a Waldenbooks, and three or four display cases are devoted to manga, while only three or four shelves have American graphic novels.

Big publishing companies like Simon & Schuester are involved in their distribution. Del Rey is publishing translated manga.

I'm not even suggesting the demise of American comics but manga are grabbing the attention of the publishing world and more importantly, young readers.

And thanks for the words of welcome.



Ed

[Anthony Palmer]

Greg makes a point that is key to my feelings on the subject. "Writing for the trade," and decompression are really off-putting if one is accustomed to previous eras wherein mastery of serialized fiction was more common. Much of what I read now has a startling absense of things that I think makes the publishing format of comics so unique. Sub-plots, for example. In this age where a team may stay on a book for a max of 12 issues, you just don't get the long-term, slow-burn of a sub-plot that enriches the reading experience. The more six-issue arcs I read the more I'm increasingly left with the feeling that the writer came in, shot off his only story and left with his check and that was it.

Market conditions just aren't ideal for long term work that makes use of the virtues of the publishing method, I guess. It's a damn shame.

Conversely I would imagine that readers introduced to the medium more recently may like finite stories and frequent, high profile creative team swaps because it's what they are accustomed to. One could also make a point that the younger generation is affected by shifts in American culture and the prevalence of the "on demand," era of high speed internet, Tivo and cell phones, but I'm not articulate enough to explore that idea in-depth.

I'm personally just frightened that we may never see something like Walt Simonson's MIGHTY THOR ever again.

[roach04]

I'm personally just frightened that we may never see something like Walt Simonson's MIGHTY THOR ever again.

I was going to use this as my example when you commented on the missing mastery of "serialized fiction"! Surtur worked on that sword for one panel/page for what, a year? Longer? And every month you thought "What the hell is going on???". You HAD to buy the book the following month. Now, that doesn't exist. How often do you get your new comics, grab a particular title and the first thing you think is "...what the heck happened in this book last month?" When all the stories are written specifically to be read in one sitting, the "wow factor" or excitement from a solitary comic book is gone.

[reader809]

The younger generation is spending a lot of time on the internet. A lot of it is Instant Messaging and private sites for family and friends with photos and other bits and pieces. Girls still go on and talk about boys but instead of mom or dad listening in on the conversation, typing it out and sending it adds a layer of privacy.

I've read a lot about "expeimentation" over the years, but who has really done it? I'm unimpressed with most of the webcomics out there. And why wouldn't it be possible for someone to do a long running series with subplots?

I contend that kids/young adults today are not that different from those growing up in the 60s. I'm around enough of them to understand their thoughts and attitudes.

Look at the success of Harry Potter. I have a 10 year old relative who can sit and read these relatively thick books and loves them.


Ed

[Paploo the Ewok]

Frankly, they are in a manga-style rhythm, where the pace of a page is such that it takes a lot of pages to get from point a to point b. Now, you can get away with that kind of thing with a paperback book of a comic like you get from Viz or Tokyopop, $8.95 for 200 pages. But it's criminal to use that kind of rhythm and structure for a story in the standard 22-page U.S. format. Lately, it occurs to me every time I go to the shop that for $15, I can get six standard issues of a comic book from DC or Marvel, or I can order from a discount book site online and get an Essential or a Showcase, and have enough left over for a cup of coffee.

Mind you, Manga are actually serialized monthly [some weekly, but there's only a handful of weeklies like Shonen Jump and Shonen Sunday]. In 16-48 page chunks. And there's a LOT of creators who work primarily in short story formats, like Tomoko Taniguchi, or Moto Hagio. So the pacing isn't really an apt comparision..... especially where stuff like Claremont's Uncanny X-men reads a lot better in trades, where you can connect all the longrunning plotlines together.

Most of Rumiko Takahashi's work is comparable to CarlBanks as well- same characters, but with episodic stories. There may be some kind of overarching story [this is most strongest in her work Maison Ikkoku], but Ranma 1/2 and Urusei Yatsura are pretty much just collections of 16 page stories with the same characters and running gags.

Also, I think classic comic fans would really dig classic manga from the 60's, 70's and early 80's, which all feature more compact pacing. Stuff from the 50's and 60's tends to be really similar to Silver Age comics in terms of writing style and pacing. I find Metropolis and Astro Boy have a lot in common with Tin Tin for example in terms of how the stories flow.

I think it's more of a shift in styles, and new ideas and creators popping up over the years. Not every new fan wants to shift through older work [which is why Tezuka's manga, and 70's shoujo manga like Swan don't sell as well as more recent works from the 90's and 00's], but there is a lot of newer fans who are willing to check it out. I tend to look at any older stuff I read from a historical perspective [ Golden Age Wonder Woman is a hoot :) And full of interesting, if odd ideas], though there is a lot of stuff that's timeless to me [Claremont's X-men run, Schultz's Peanuts, Tezuka's work after his skills solidifed post-Astro Boy, Takahashi's 80's work]. A lot of stuff just doesn't age well, which is a simple fact of fiction.... there were a lot more popular writers then Shakespeare, but for various reasons, his stuff stuck around the longest in the public mind. Same thing with comics, though there's a lot of hidden treasures out there......

It'd be interesting if the US comics market had a chance to evolve more beyond Superheroes, but the works of the 60's and 70's manga [especially work of Shoujo creators like Moto Hagio, Ryoko Ikkeda and others who revolutionized manga by becoming established female cartoonists, when previously in the 50's and 60's men dominated the field even in girl's magazines], and the growth of creator owned comics there, is an interesting "what if" parrallel world of classic comics ^_^

Anyhoo, it's good to see stuff like Elfquest getting collected in archival and digest form. I'm also glad to see Fantagraphics focus on printing archival, complete editions of various comic strips.

[The Wayner]

I read both classic and current comics, so I'm not on the divide here.

The one thing that really touched me was that need to find out the origins of characters, and how did they get here?, that's lost in the present books.

Recently, I tried to push some classic comics on a younger fan (teenager---maybe 17). These books were from the 70s, Hulk titles. The kid looked at'em and told me he didn't ready anything pre-odds, and especially wouldn't touch anything from the 70s. Don't ask me why, but that's what he said.

What's a feller to do?

[scratchie]

Just to offer another couple of counter-examples: Brian Bendis just wrapped up, what, five years on Daredevil? And he's written eighty-something issues of Ultimate Spider-Man? Not all books are turning over their creative teams constantly. Ed Brubaker just wrote 14 amazingly kick-ass issues of Captain America and doesn't seem to be going anywhere any time soon.

Certainly the style of storytelling is a little more relaxed these days ("decompressed") and is pretty different from the writing in earlier days, but there's nothing inherently contradictory about liking both, any more than there is in liking 40s film noir and modern thrillers. And the best writers still seem to be consciously writing a serialized story rather than a "trade" and (a) give you a "hook" every issue and (b) remind you of what's gone on before. Again, it's important to compare good writers to good writers, rather than just comparing the most influential creators ever to some vague generalization about the worst of contemporary writers.

So far, this thread seems to largely consist of classic comics fans (older guys, I'm guessing) complaining that they don't like newer comics. All very well and good, but not particularly enlightening as to what, if anything, makes the schism between younger fans and older fans any more exceptional or worthy of note in the comics industry than it is in among fans of other form of artistic expression.

I'd like to hear from some younger fans. Are there any on this board? If not, maybe some could be recruited from other boards to give their opinions on bronze age and earlier comics.

[Anthony Palmer]

I'd like to hear from some younger fans. Are there any on this board? If not, maybe some could be recruited from other boards to give their opinions on bronze age and earlier comics.

I'm 21, and my experience with Bronze Age comics is pretty slim. I think I've got two comics published before 1980, and SHOWCASE PRESENTS JONAH HEX. So, uh, I'm hardly an authority, though I definitely enjoy them. I tend to be more interested in mid-late '80s, though by far most of my purchases are new comics. Mostly because they're.. New. I enjoy looking forward to current events. I would purchase much more older material if I had the money, but I don't, so I mostly stick to new stuff with the occasional TPB or low-grade bulk (Ebay).

In my situation I had the rotten luck of being born in the wrong decade. I started reading comics in 1990.

Good point about Bendis, though. I haven't read any of the mentioned titles but they are certainly special achievements. Long runs aren't impossible, but just less probable, it seems. I think there's less of an incentive to go that route. The market is changing because it has to, really. Ideally there shouldn't be anything to worry about as more and more older stuff is collected, though. I can't tell you how happy I am about the ESSENTIAL and SHOWCASE PRESENTS lines.

[Sir Tim Drake]

Welcome to CBR, Anthony.

[The Wayner]

Anthony: Let me second that welcome! And I can dig your last name. ;)

[DarthAstuart]

on the whole, i probably read more older comics than I do new ones, big time. all of my collection from my childhood and teen years is back in Chicago, and I'm in LA with all my trade paperbacks. i re-read those when I'm in the mood, or pick up new trades with collections of classic past stories.

i think a lot of people have hit on a lot of the reasons why people find it hard to stay into current comics, but the big one for me is simple--cost. i cannot afford to spend as much as i'd like on new single-issue comics. for the amount i may have in disposable income each month to spend on comics, i can get maybe one or two trades (or more, if I shop smart on ebay, which is what I've been trying to do lately!).

what i always wonder is why the major publishers aren't seizing on this disconnect more than they already are. more cheaper trades and more movement into the manga size market would seem to be incredibly smart moves. maybe they're there already, and I just don't realize it.

i know I noticed a few trades at target of all places and even thought about buying them...none of them were more than $12-13 even though the cover prices were the usual $14.99 or $17.99.

anyway. no idea what this really is relating to the thread anymore. but bridging this gap between vintage readers and those who read comics currently would really be helped if the big two did more to reach out to both audiences, instead of aiming for that narrow collector market.

[DDM]

I read both classic and current comics, so I'm not on the divide here.

The one thing that really touched me was that need to find out the origins of characters, and how did they get here?, that's lost in the present books.

Recently, I tried to push some classic comics on a younger fan (teenager---maybe 17). These books were from the 70s, Hulk titles. The kid looked at'em and told me he didn't ready anything pre-odds, and especially wouldn't touch anything from the 70s. Don't ask me why, but that's what he said.

What's a feller to do?

What reasons did he give you for not touching any comic published in the 70s? He's missing out on a lot of good material.

[Reptisaurus!]

It's simple, really. Casual fans of current media are always turned off by older media, which looks, sounds, feels different.

Same deal with movies, books, music, even visual arts.

And the reverse is true as well.

"Damn Kids! Turn that New-Fangled Rock and Rawr Music Off and Get Offa my My Lawn!"

Folks become acustomed to a certain storytelling style, and decide that Golden/Silver/Bronze/Superhero/Western/Funny Animal/Modern/Independent/Mainstream comics are no good because they don't adhere to the style they're most comfortable with.

[The Wayner]

He really gave no reasons, which only cemented the fact that he didn't know what he was talking about. Just something about it "being old" or something. :rolleyes:

I tried pawning off the nifty arc where Banner loses the ability to become the Hulk, and the Leader takes over Gamma Base, but to no avail. At least the kid is reading PLANET HULK, so maybe the seed will be planted for those classic stories.

He'll be back into the shop, next week, so, if you fail once, try, try, try again! :D

[DDM]

As an adult, I read more books from the 60's & early 70's since I have a large bulk of books from the mid-to-late 70's already. Yes, the current comic book industry lacks the Wow Factor because the editors have decided to write for trade which diminishes proper character development. DC seems to take more chances with their stories than Marvel currently does (see DC's Infinite Crisis & contrast it with House of M). Marvel seems to be obsessed with gimmicks than actually telling good stories.

But Marvel's problem is to have gone through an editorial brain drain which the company has released talented editors & replaced them with less than creative bodies in their place...

[DDM]

It's simple, really. Casual fans of current media are always turned off by older media, which looks, sounds, feels different.

Same deal with movies, books, music, even visual arts.

And the reverse is true as well.

"Damn Kids! Turn that New-Fangled Rock and Rawr Music Off and Get Offa my My Lawn!"

Folks become acustomed to a certain storytelling style, and decide that Golden/Silver/Bronze/Superhero/Western/Funny Animal/Modern/Independent/Mainstream comics are no good because they don't adhere to the style they're most comfortable with.

When I was a teenager, I loved reading older books to see the difference in styles in clothes & language. And the advertisements! I still love to see it today.

[roach04]

I'd like to hear from some younger fans. Are there any on this board? If not, maybe some could be recruited from other boards to give their opinions on bronze age and earlier comics.

I think the toughest part of that might be finding younger fans on the internet who've read bronze or silver age comics!

Re: Brian Bendis. I've heard good things, but other than a few issues of Powers at Image and Fortune and Glory, I've never read a thing by him. I used to love Daredevil but lost interest after Ann Nocenti left. I bought the Kevin Smith issues due to internet buzz about how it was "the best since Frank Miller" only to discover those generating the buzz had likely never read Daredevil by Frank Miller. Or Ann Nocenti. Or Denny O'Neil. Or...anybody BUT Kevin Smith. That was really the beginning of the end with me and Marvel and their on-line hype machine.

But, to keep an open mind - lemme know the best arc and best one-off story (similar to "Guts Nelson" in DD #185) from Bendis' run and I'll read 'em!

(BTW - if Brubaker is the guy who brought back Bucky, I can't read that Cap - the one classic, unforgivable rule of comics - "Only Bucky stays dead"! ;) )

[The Wayner]

I just come from one "Was Kevin Smith's DD Any Good?" conversation with mixed reviews, to another comment on it! This is getting good, and only whetting my fangs to sink into it, lol.

As for Bendis on DD? I thought he struck a chord on every arc. Surprisingly, the one I'd recommend is "Golden Age" (I believe it's called) where we visit Hell's Kitchen prior to the Kingpin. I could really dig it, and it even has the Gladiator... what more could you ask for? ;)

[The Wayner]

And Brubaker is doing an astonishing job, man. I can dig where you're coming from on the dead Bucky track, but you should really give it a go. It's really that good.

Can't wait to see what Brubaker does with DD...

[scratchie]

And Brubaker is doing an astonishing job, man. I can dig where you're coming from on the dead Bucky track, but you should really give it a go. It's really that good. Yeah, he's right. Brubaker accomplished the impossible by bringing back Bucky and doing it in a way that was compelling and meaningful. No question that he's the hot writer to watch right now at Marvel. He's also currently doing a great job completely rewriting the story behind Giant-Size X-Men #1.

As for Bendis, I'm not that familiar with him, but the guy at my LCS recommended Alias ("pre-Marvel-universe") when I asked about him. Ultimate Spider-Man is a blast, though, and captures some of the early Spider-Man vibe by making him a high schooler again. It's readable and funny and you don't have to go back re-read the previous issue every month when the new one comes out to remember what's going on.

[reader809]

I think that old versus new argument is a gross generalization, along with newfangled.

Advertisers are quick to say "this isn't your parents' [fill in the blank]. Implying anyone who follows their parents' likes and dislikes could not possibly be cool or "modern."

As I wrote before, I really enjoy excellent art where I can find it. Unfortunately, with rare exceptions, I don't see it in comics.


Ed

[Anthony Palmer]

Welcome to CBR, Anthony.
Anthony: Let me second that welcome! And I can dig your last name.

Thank you, gentlemen!

I am steadfastly resolved to purchasing more classic material in pursuit of great cosmic truths.

[spoon_jenkins]

Something that no one's touched on is the current trend of 'writing for the trade,' or 'decompressed' storytelling, or 'widescreen' comics, or whatever you want to call it. What this means to geezers like me is that individual issues of comics read too fast. I grew up reading comics structured with 6-7 panels a page and a lot of dense text. Now I blow through an issue of Ultimate something or other in 3-5 minutes, and then get really annoyed as I realize I'm out $2.50 for an entertainment experience that's basically over.
This is probably the biggest reason that I predominantly buy back issues now. Comics nowadays don't seem nearly as meaty and they're such quick reads. I feel like I'm reading a half or a third of a comic. Because most of the back issues I buy are from roughly 1975 to 1990 (rather than more expensive earlier stuff) and because I can find such great bargains from ebay and online retailer, almost all the back issues I buy cost less than new comics. In fact, I'd estimate that the average price I've paid for the back issues I've bought in the past year is probably under $1.50 each.

And I get a lot of Essentials far below cover price on ebay. I'm far happier getting 25-30 black & white silver age Marvel stories in a TPB for $7.50 than only 3 new comics at the same price.

[Sir Tim Drake]

I'm a younger fan myself (23 years old, got into comics in 1991 or 1992) and obviously I read old comics, or else I wouldn't have been qualified for this job. :) I don't see any disconnect between my enjoyment of old comics and my enjoyment of new comics. I think quality is often timeless, and even old comics which have aged badly are still interesting for historical reasons. And, of course, back issues are often much cheaper than current comics, and there is a certain satisfaction in owning old stuff. Obviously all this is preaching to the converted, but I'm trying to answer scratchie's question about how younger fans view Bronze and Silver Age material.

I certainly agree that new comics cost too much and tend to be written for the trade, and I'm not sure why I tend to be willing to spend more money on new comics than old. However, there are still some current comics that are on a par with the great works of the past, and that are worth the inflated prices-- Legion of Super-Heroes, Usagi Yojimbo, Runaways, Love & Rockets, anything by Grant Morrison, etc.

[Graham Vingoe]

I'm getting 15 titles regularly(including a couple of limited series,admittedly) and Essentials/collected editions as and when they interest me. The majority of the collections are of material published prior to 2000. Its questionable which I enjoy more. When modern comics are great (eg Captain America by Ed Brubaker) they are as good as the so-called classic material. Every age of comics has great titles and awful titles. The one constant I find through this and many other comics related message boards is that the fans on this board are more broadminded, knowledgeable and fairer than those where younger comics readers are in the majority. We all have our preferences as to reading matter but if, say, I think Brian Bendis is a genius and Sir Tim thinks he is a hack, we'll agree to differ. on Newsarama, I'd be hung, drawn and quartered for that opinion.
So generally, I think there may be a rift between new and old comic readers but it is not one shared by "The People Who Haunt the Classics Comics Board"
If there was, I wouldn't come here :)

[Agentum]

Yes it is, there are people that dis everything new even if they never have read it, it's like they hate that comics is still being made.

And of course some is the other way around.

[Halloween Jill]

Unless I missed it, no one said anything about the reference to Joe Kubert as an artist from 'the past'! I hope everyone's checked out Sgt Rock: The Prophecy, second ish out yesterday, I think -- the guy draws as well as ever and I thought it was a really nice book. (Even though I don't like war comics much.)

I believe Ditko still draws a lot of stuff too, though sadly, because only about six people bought those last indie packages, he's kind of in publishing limbo, as he won't work for Marvel, DC, etc. I find that quite disheartening, though I know a lot of people don't like his solo stuff anyway...

As to the topic, I have a feeling I fall into the older reader side of the divide, though a bit unwillingly. Well, definitely as far as spandex goes: I'm not a superhero fan for its own sake, and it seems to me most of the interesting innovations were already done with 'em, like, 20 years ago. (Hmmm... was Watchmen the end of the line? It kinda feels like it, in a way.)

I don't like the art in a lot of the new Marvel/DC books, either. It all looks the same, though the homogenous colouring doesn't help. Mostly slick stuff, but no charisma. I'd rather watch an X-Men movie than read a new X-Men comic. Most of the public agrees with me, though, so I take some comfort in that. I think. ;-)

They are quick reads, and for the price, that isn't very attractive either. It is kind of a Manga thing. Frank Miller's used this approach a lot too -- look at that Family Values (Sin City) book. A thick book, but you read it in half an hour. An interesting piece of work, a clever wrap, but I had to think it would've worked better in about 20 pages. Three pages for a non-fatal car accident, and not even that well drawn... why? If you're gonna show off, make it good.

Maybe the thing is, at least with me, the interest in spandex is mostly to do with memories. Apart from picking up that new Kubert book -- which isn't spandex anyway -- the only new comic I read at the moment is Love and Rockets. (I should read more, but I also should have more money in the bank. ;-))

I think my train of thought got a bit muddled here, so apologies if it doesn't add up.

[Agentum]

I agree that a lot of the older art in silverage books are very good, it's the storys that lacks.

Comics is more and more becoming a niche thing, it have a lot more to compete with today than in the 70s.

But a good story is a good story even if it's not considered as good literature.
I don't give a damn about people that thinks textbooks are better than comics, i read ordinary books too and each thing has its own pros and cons.

You can do a lot with pictures that can't be done only with words.

Superheroes is of course a subject that indicate children storys, but with the movie trend of today it seems ordinary people want to see superheroes in the movies.

No a good story is a good story, no matter how it's presented, you are missing out if you don't understand that.

[Halloween Jill]

No, the stories usually don't hold up that well. I thought the Lee-Kirby FF was something else as a kid, but it's a mildly uncomfortable read today.

Are new superhero comics any better, writing-wise? I had someone trying to sell me on Grant Morrison a while back. He was telling me some of the plot for some DC epic with Superman and everyone else, quoting bits of dialogue, and I thought it sounded like the most predictable lot of cliched tripe I'd ever heard in my life. Almost a parody, but apparently with little irony. Maybe he described it badly...

[Agentum]

One thing that is hard is when you are needed to understand years of older storys just to read a book.

And i wish there were more non superhero comics, even if you can use superheroes to tell most storys i think it gets a bit forced sometimes when someone want to tell a good story but know that it wouldn't sell if it not contains superheroes.

Well most older comics are plot driven and if you like that the older comics may be good enough, everybody may not like the character driven storys that is common today.
But it's still much much that can be done with comics, whatever you can come up with you can do with comics (well almost), unlimited special effects :)
But sometimes i feel that the writers don't try hard enogh.

Writers like Alan Moore is an icon in comics, but he would only be one by many if he was writing textbooks, see what i mean?

But when the audience gets older more and more demand is for quality storys and of course in comics art is important too, like the quality of the picture in a movie is even if the written story is the most important (i guess?).

But it's hard to argue with somebody that is into comics just because nostalgic reasons, they see everything in a little too bright light.
Nothing beats nostalgic feelings, but i always have thoght that is more intresting to talk and remember the old stuff than to actully try it again today, mostly you get dissapointed if you don't lie till you convince yourself that it's good (and many do).

[The Wayner]

I hope everyone's checked out Sgt Rock: The Prophecy, second ish out yesterday, I think -- the guy draws as well as ever and I thought it was a really nice book. (Even though I don't like war comics much.)

I'm definitely reading it! Haven't been disappointed by it, yet. And, honestly, don't expect to be. I hear tell Kubert and ol Rock are buddies from long back. ;)

[telle]

There is a rift, or more properly a generation gap. We may find it problematic but only because so much comics culture has been traditionally linked to collecting the past. Modern comics (mostly non-superhero) and manga have more to offer than ever before and the urge to accumulate older comics is just not there.

I'm an older fan who does both. Likes adult graphic novels/art comics/Eurocomics but obsessed with old comics and classic comic strips going back to the 1800s, etc. Stopped buying DC and Marvel superheroes around mid-80s but not above picking up the odd Brubaker or Busiek or Morrision or Darwyn Cooke trade online or in a bookstore but I'm embarrassed to walk into a comic shop and buy an individual new superhero comic. Still buy pre-90s back issues and Essentials/Showcase. The "new" DC and Marvel universes are not confusing compared to yesteryear, just crappier, for the most part.

New superhero comics are ugly and gratuitously violent and not as entertaining and economical as manga or many classics. There is a new worldwide golden age emerging, but Marvel, DC, and Image are not really part of it.

[Agentum]

. The "new" DC and Marvel universes are not confusing compared to yesteryear, just crappier, for the most part.

New superhero comics are ugly and gratuitously violent and not as entertaining and economical as manga or many classics. There is a new worldwide golden age emerging, but Marvel, DC, and Image are not really part of it.
I must say that i find it a bit fun that 90s comics would be considered better hehehe, especially if you like you say don't buy and read the new comics.

I don't get this, are there no more good storys out there to be told that you would like?

If you like the plotdriven 60s silverage stuff i guess you would hate most of todays comics.
There are diffrent kind of comics today like it has been for many years, there are no random kind of bad comic.
Economicly no, but i buy trades or such reprints mostly, but new books is very expensive, but i don't see how that would affect the quality.

I don't know much about Manga, in my country much of those comics is about characters that yell "powerstar!!" to get diffrent powers, very often 12 years old looking girls with big eyes or about the shy boy that don't dare to talk to the girls in school (it is supposed to be so much good manga people say but that is about what seems to sell here).

I like 80s comics much but have started to see that superhero comics from the last years is getting better again.

About that goldenage, i don't understand, what comics would that be that is on the uprise again?

No, don't knock it till you tried it, that is if you even like the genere, it's pretty pointless if you don't like superherocomics at all :)

[Rob Imes]

I've said this before in various posts, but I'll say it again here. The biggest divide or gap or whatever seems to be when it comes to buying back issues. When I was a kid growing up in the 1970s-80s, me and my comics-buying friends bought both new AND old comics. We had discovered comics at the local drugstores (mainly new issues, although that would include new reprints of old comics such as "Marvel Triple Action"), so we bought new comics every week. When we learned about comics shops, we used that resource mainly to buy back issues of a favorite title, to build up our collection. Sometimes I still associate the sensation of opening up an old comic that has been bagged with those days of my youth when I first started buying back issues.

Although I wasn't born until the 1970s, I knew that a lot of the great comics (and movies, and music, etc.) had happened before I was born. And so I was open to experiencing them. And while 1960s issues (buying 1940s-50s comics was almost out of the question due to rarity and cost) could sometimes be expensive, you could still find comics like Tales of Suspense at a reasonable price. And doing so, you could see what Marvel used to be like, back when they were still a small company, back when they still had "Tales of the Watcher" back-up stories by Larry Lieber, and so on. It was easy to see the innocent charm in those old comics.

I went through most of the 1990s ignoring new comics entirely, sticking to the back issue boxes, but gradually I began to warm up to them again. I still avoid new comics that have clunky, distorted, badly-drawn art. I still wish that I could buy certain titles, if only the art was more realistic, less goofy-looking. But there are indeed new titles which appeal to me.

While I'm not crazy about Brubaker's bringing back Bucky (personally I hold out hope for it all being a ghastly mistake), I do find it to be intelligently written and nicely drawn. I buy it every month and it compares favorably with any other celebrated era in Cap's history.

Probably my favorite new title is "The Thing." Good solid realistic superhero art, fun story. The first couple issues have contained appearances by Nighthawk (of The Defenders), Black Goliath, and Iron Man. This new comic compares favorably to its 1970s counterpart, Marvel Two-in-One.

For most of last year, I was even buying (gasp!) Uncanny X-Men every month. Alan Davis had been doing the art, and the storyline took the X-Men to Ka-Zar's Savage Land. For anyone who likes a realistic style like Neal Adam's old X-Men issues, check out those Alan Davis X-Men issues from last year.

[telle]

I must say that i find it a bit fun that 90s comics would be considered better hehehe, especially if you like you say don't buy and read the new comics.

I don't get this, are there no more good storys out there to be told that you would like?

If you like the plotdriven 60s silverage stuff i guess you would hate most of todays comics.
There are diffrent kind of comics today like it has been for many years, there are no random kind of bad comic.
Economicly no, but i buy trades or such reprints mostly, but new books is very expensive, but i don't see how that would affect the quality.

I don't know much about Manga, in my country much of those comics is about characters that yell "powerstar!!" to get diffrent powers, very often 12 years old looking girls with big eyes or about the shy boy that don't dare to talk to the girls in school (it is supposed to be so much good manga people say but that is about what seems to sell here).

I like 80s comics much but have started to see that superhero comics from the last years is getting better again.

About that goldenage, i don't understand, what comics would that be that is on the uprise again?

No, don't knock it till you tried it, that is if you even like the genere, it's pretty pointless if you don't like superherocomics at all :)

Like I said, there are some great comics (even superhero comics) from 1990-2006 that I have bought and read. I also think that writers like Brubaker and Morrison are VERY plot-driven and I like many of their comics. Great art too, sometimes.

Good work seems to be done despite the best efforts of the editorial and corporate side of Marvel and DC to produce crap (crossovers, events, "adult"-themed superhero comics that involve killing off superheroes for sales, flooding the amrket with books, poor brand development, gimmicks).

The variety of translated manga available in Canada and the US (and Germany and France), not to mention Japan, almost defies description. Your characterization makes it seem that these are all crappy kids comics -- basically equivalent to U.S. comics being reduced to Shazam and Archie.

Most of my love for old US superhero comics is based on nostalgia, I admit.

The modern golden age involves mostly adult comics and manga, I think, but it certainly seems there are still good superheroes (but remember Sturgeon's Law). A Scandinavian example of this trend of great cartoonists would be Norway's Jason.

[superhornet34]

there is a ton of good stuff out there. its just that a lot of it isnt marvel or dc. There are great comics that are similiar to the older comics your talking about. You just have to do some simple online research and youll find it. If you want classis superhero stories try:

Invincible (image)-no need for explanation here. This is like a modern version of spiderman and superman and so much more

Godland (image)-classis cosmic superhero story. Great stuff, art resembles jack Kirby.

Thunderbird (Atlantis Studios)-i know what your thinking...who? Its a creator owned work based off a regular guy who inherits a high tech suit with wings and other weapons. It is very throwback superhero like. www.thunderbirdcomics.com.

Roy Thomas Anthem (heroic publishing)-world war II superhero story.

Also check out independant companies like BOOM! studios, alias comics, atlantis studios, heroic publishing, antarctic press, and more! You guys are missing out because your fixated on a time when marvel and DC were the only players in the game. I realize they still dominate 80% of the market but the other 20% provides a wide range of great work. Don't shut them out because they dont have the advertising dollars.

[Agentum]

Like I said, there are some great comics (even superhero comics) from 1990-2006 that I have bought and read. I also think that writers like Brubaker and Morrison are VERY plot-driven and I like many of their comics. Great art too, sometimes.

I really thing the greatest years for Manga has already been, at least here, i remember when it was hot, everybody would try it etc.
It has calmed down alot and here it only that kind of manga that sells, i have never seen all that good manga, so like i wrote "i don't know much about manga".

I don't know what adult comics is, some kind of porno comics or what?

No need to fight about it, i got some questions answered, you can read and think what you wan't.

[Halloween Jill]

So how do people feel generally about books like Godland? I looked at a few online previews. I can't see any reason to bother with something like that if I own the real thing (i.e. comics by Kirby). I want to see people developing their own approaches, and I don't think this guy has learnt to draw outside of a Kirby frame of reference. It's sort of a different approach but the same problem as with a lot of newer artists -- little grounding outside of the Adams/Byrne/Lee/Manga mannerisms, only this artist has taken his cues exclusively from Kirby. The results are poor either way... and Kirby's stuff is too esoteric to effectively emulate IMO. He learnt to draw fairly well FIRST, before developing this personal approach, which took him several decades anyway. People think they just jump right ON with that without putting in the long, hard work he did on his learning curve, but I think the results speaks for themselves...

[Anthony Palmer]

Probably my favorite new title is "The Thing." Good solid realistic superhero art, fun story. The first couple issues have contained appearances by Nighthawk (of The Defenders), Black Goliath, and Iron Man. This new comic compares favorably to its 1970s counterpart, Marvel Two-in-One.


If you like THE THING, I strongly recommend SHE-HULK by the same writer; Dan Slott. My absolute favorite writer over at Marvel currently, he's got a style that is both classic but modern and makes great use of Marvel continuitiy. SHE-HULK is a solid, fun read every month.

Godland (image)-classis cosmic superhero story. Great stuff, art resembles jack Kirby.

I'll also take this oppertunity to talk up GODLAND! Besides being awesome, this book gives me hope. It's book is tailor made for anyone who likes cosmic epics and long-term storytelling. The art is Kirbyesque, though "esque," isn't strong enough a word to describe it, as it's a very intentional mimic, I think.
It also uses things like thought bubbles and huge sound effects that modern comics are so determined to do away with. GODLAND is the book I would first recommend to any classic comics fan who wants to try something new. It's great.

My favorite little touch is that the numbering on the cover has four digits. The first issue is #0001.

You guys are missing out because your fixated on a time when marvel and DC were the only players in the game.

I'm very guilty of this. I buy comics partly because of nostalagia, and characters I'm familiar with are a reliable source of that. Comics are so expensive these days that I find myself in ultra-consumer mode, trying to maximize my enjoyment and minimize my expenditure. The result is that I stick to things I know. I confess!

[sheets]

So how do people feel generally about books like Godland? I looked at a few online previews. I can't see any reason to bother with something like that if I own the real thing (i.e. comics by Kirby).

I bought the first issue and thought it was okay but nothing special. What got me about it was that I bought it the same week as when I bought the Kirby Black Panther tpb, and as weird and "cosmic" as Godland was really trying hard to be, it didn't even begin to approach how whacked out that 70's Kirby stuff was. I'm not saying that Black Panther was among Kirby's best work, but the side-by-side comparison of the two books really showed off how crazy and invigorating his imagination could be :)

As for other current books, I usually follow creators. Steve Rude, Mike Mignola, Kurt Busiek, Alan Moore, Tim Truman, Eric Powell, Alan Davis, P. Craig Russell, John Ostrander, a few others...they always at least get consideration from me if not an automatic purchase. I do try to look for new guys coming in that seem to do quality work, which is how I got into Eric Powell's stuff. I got that first issue of Athena Voltaire last week and was quite impressed with the guys who did that one.