I miss the footnotes in the comics.

[icctrombone]

Back in the period from the 60's to about the early 90's , Marvel comics used to have footnote boxes . I liked the information that it contained . It would tell you what issue # particular events happened . It made you go out and look to buy the back issues. What ever happened to it ? Is it possible that editors didn't want to do the research ?

[MDG]

It seems a lot of modern editors don't want writers using devices like narrative captions and expositional dialog to explain things. Same story with footnotes.

MDG

[Rob on the Job]

Back in the period from the 60's to about the early 90's , Marvel comics used to have footnote boxes . I liked the information that it contained . It would tell you what issue # particular events happened . It made you go out and look to buy the back issues. What ever happened to it ? Is it possible that editors didn't want to do the research ?

And the footnotes would be signed by:

"Rascally Roy"

"Smilin' Stan"

"Loyal Len"

etc.

[DDM]

Back in the period from the 60's to about the early 90's , Marvel comics used to have footnote boxes . I liked the information that it contained . It would tell you what issue # particular events happened . It made you go out and look to buy the back issues. What ever happened to it ? Is it possible that editors didn't want to do the research ?

I miss the footnotes. I believe most of the editors just do not want to do the research cited in the story.

[Aaron King]

As another factor, I think fewer stories today directly reference past stories. Back in the day, villains would reveal themselves and say something along the lines of, "It is I, Dr. Awesome!"

The heroes would gasp and emote, "But we thought you perished as your flying island crashed into the reawakened Pompeii volcano!"

And the villain would reply, "That is exactly what I wanted you to see! That Dr. Awesome was merely my invincible mutated Crocodile Man, cloaked by my Personality Projector!*"

"*As seen in Doctor Thom and the Redemption Agents #14! Don't tell me you missed it! -Affable Aaron"

These days, the exchange would be more like, "Dr. Awesome. But you're--"

"The reports of my death have been... greatly exaggerated."

And it would probably take them an entire issue to say that.

[DDM]

As another factor, I think fewer stories today directly reference past stories. Back in the day, villains would reveal themselves and say something along the lines of, "It is I, Dr. Awesome!"

The heroes would gasp and emote, "But we thought you perished as your flying island crashed into the reawakened Pompeii volcano!"

And the villain would reply, "That is exactly what I wanted you to see! That Dr. Awesome was merely my invincible mutated Crocodile Man, cloaked by my Personality Projector!*"

"*As seen in Doctor Thom and the Redemption Agents #14! Don't tell me you missed it! -Affable Aaron"

These days, the exchange would be more like, "Dr. Awesome. But you're--"

"The reports of my death have been... greatly exaggerated."

And it would probably take them an entire issue to say that.

Not true. As recently as Fantastic Four: The End #3 references Fantastic Four #243, yet the editor did not cite the issue, although Uatu could not be more clear when he was talking to Galactus.

[MWGallaher]

Footnotes seem to have died out before the trend toward quick TPB collections began, but it would be kind of awkward to have the second chapter in a book include footnotes like "*It happened last issue, True Believer!". On the other hand, now that all the lettering is a digital overlay in a computer file, it would be a simple matter to delete those kinds of things out of a collection, wouldn't it?
But really, while I understand missing footnotes for nostalgia's sake, but really, in their heyday, how much practical good were they, really? If you had the issue being referenced, you probably remembered it. If you didn't have the issue, well, the footnote was probably not such an irresistible teaser that it would spur you to seek it out on the (then-more-difficult) back-issue market. If it was of the "it happened last issue" type, you could probably figure that out for yourself from the context (in the 70's, almost every Marvel could be rightly assumed to be continuing from "last issue"). The only footnotes I can think of right now that could really be useful were the kind that said stuff like "Don't read this until you've read the first part in Werewolf By Night #18--still on sale!". And we still usually get the equivalent of this, with notices up front if the story continues directly from an issue of a different series.
So really, it's no big loss as I see it, at least the back issue reference footnotes aren't big losses.

[DDM]

Footnotes seem to have died out before the trend toward quick TPB collections began, but it would be kind of awkward to have the second chapter in a book include footnotes like "*It happened last issue, True Believer!". On the other hand, now that all the lettering is a digital overlay in a computer file, it would be a simple matter to delete those kinds of things out of a collection, wouldn't it?
But really, while I understand missing footnotes for nostalgia's sake, but really, in their heyday, how much practical good were they, really? If you had the issue being referenced, you probably remembered it. If you didn't have the issue, well, the footnote was probably not such an irresistible teaser that it would spur you to seek it out on the (then-more-difficult) back-issue market. If it was of the "it happened last issue" type, you could probably figure that out for yourself from the context (in the 70's, almost every Marvel could be rightly assumed to be continuing from "last issue"). The only footnotes I can think of right now that could really be useful were the kind that said stuff like "Don't read this until you've read the first part in Werewolf By Night #18--still on sale!". And we still usually get the equivalent of this, with notices up front if the story continues directly from an issue of a different series.
So really, it's no big loss as I see it, at least the back issue reference footnotes aren't big losses.


Footnotes allowed the reader to seek out the cited issues & it made you believe the Marvel Universe was a whole, complete universe unto itself.

It also gave the editors credibility because they knew what they were talking about by citing the specific issues in the story.

[Reptisaurus!]

I don't care about the continuity.

I've read too many comics, and that trick NEVER works.

But I miss the direct communication between the editors and the fans in the books and footnotes were part of that.

Now all are direct communication is over the internet, where we can talk to Kurt Busiek and stuff.

[MWGallaher]

Footnotes allowed the reader to seek out the cited issues & it made you believe the Marvel Universe was a whole, complete universe unto itself.

It also gave the editors credibility because they knew what they were talking about by citing the specific issues in the story.

Footnotes could also be confusing to a new reader. For instance, I read a footnote in an early issue of Defenders (#3, I think), which, in all seriousness, left me wondering for quite some time whether Marvel published a comic book called "The Incredible Jade-Jaws" which I'd never seen or heard of. Hey, it wasn't that much odder a title than some comics on the stands!

[dupersuper]

DC used to have footnotes to, and has lost them to. I wish footnotes were still in use; they were handy in back-issue hunting.

[Chris N]

I kind of like how Wolverine has been playing it. Not with footnotes, but with a page at the end for relevant reading and what trades they're in. They tend to point out any major appearance by whatever character appeared, but the idea would be fine to use if they don't want footnotes. A continuty-whore page that most people could happily ignore.

Beyond that, I think DDM and Aaron King were on essentially the same page. In the old days, writers realized the character they wanted to use was dead and found a way to write that off. These days, many writers don't have any idea where the villain's last appearance or last 10 appearances were and don't really give a damn. Neither do many editors. There are pros and cons to this. I get annoyed at the laziness. Others don't care.

[TROUBLEZ]

I liked footnotes too. I never found them bothersome as a young reader. But then I never found the captions to be a bother either because I usually just skipped them and tried to make out the story from the pictures. I started to appreciate them when I got into X-Men comics in my early teens.

I think they ditched them because alot of writers are always trying to do their "definitive version" of a character, so that means undoing or ignoring past stories. Also, alot of stories are very serious and tone these days, or important "real" events, and so the footnotes take away from the seriousness of it?

I think they should be brought back with exceptions. Elektra: Assassin for example, New X-Men with Quietly and Morrisson, The Killing Joke, all should not have footnotes.

[Mike Kuypers]

DC used to have footnotes to, and has lost them to. I wish footnotes were still in use; they were handy in back-issue hunting.

DC footnotes more often dealt in facts and were there to help new readers along. (Believe it or not there was a time when editors and writers were concerned about new readers, assuming every comic was potentially someone's first issue. It's a foreign concept nowadays.)

Footnotes would explain that the Bottled City of Kandor was shrunk by Brainiac, that Green Lantern's ring was powerless against the color yellow, that savate is a form of foot fighting, or Garth Ranzz is Lightning Lad's civilian name. Sometimes there was scientific info, such as the melting point of lead, if it was germane to the story.

Of course for the readers who were "old hands" some of these footnotes became repetitive, but they could be glossed over easily. It was a fun and painless way to learn about the DC universe and the people and things that inhabited it.

[scratchie]

DC footnotes more often dealt in facts and were there to help new readers along. (Believe it or not there was a time when editors and writers were concerned about new readers, assuming every comic was potentially someone's first issue. It's a foreign concept nowadays.)

Footnotes would explain that the Bottled City of Kandor was shrunk by Brainiac, that Green Lantern's ring was powerless against the color yellow, that savate is a form of foot fighting, or Garth Ranzz is Lightning Lad's civilian name. Sometimes there was scientific info, such as the melting point of lead, if it was germane to the story.I thought they took it to comical extremes in the LoSH stories, though. I was reading one story where it seemed like every other panel had an exchange like this:

"How's it going, Garth?*"

[ *Lightning Lad's real name is Garth Ranzz! ]

Still the point about first-time readers is well-taken. When I was re-immersing myself in the Marvel and DC Universes last year, I could have used a well-placed footnote or three.

[Simon Garth]

Not true. As recently as Fantastic Four: The End #3 references Fantastic Four #243, yet the editor did not cite the issue, although Uatu could not be more clear when he was talking to Galactus.

That would be cool: Uatu, the all-seeing watcher, quotes the issue number in his dialogue to Galactus: "Aha, Galactus, you may say that, but as clearly shown in the earthly periodical [i]the Fantastic Four, issue 243 if I'm not mistaken, you were clearly shown to ..."

[swinebread]

With all the recons, nobody aging and the sliding continuity, I think footnotes are rather pointless nowadays (IMO).

[DDM]

With all the recons, nobody aging and the sliding continuity, I think footnotes are rather pointless nowadays (IMO).

Sliding timeline & aglessness are irrelvent to citing specific books when referenced in any story.

[spoon_jenkins]

Footnotes seem to have died out before the trend toward quick TPB collections began, but it would be kind of awkward to have the second chapter in a book include footnotes like "*It happened last issue, True Believer!". On the other hand, now that all the lettering is a digital overlay in a computer file, it would be a simple matter to delete those kinds of things out of a collection, wouldn't it?
But really, while I understand missing footnotes for nostalgia's sake, but really, in their heyday, how much practical good were they, really? If you had the issue being referenced, you probably remembered it. If you didn't have the issue, well, the footnote was probably not such an irresistible teaser that it would spur you to seek it out on the (then-more-difficult) back-issue market. If it was of the "it happened last issue" type, you could probably figure that out for yourself from the context (in the 70's, almost every Marvel could be rightly assumed to be continuing from "last issue"). The only footnotes I can think of right now that could really be useful were the kind that said stuff like "Don't read this until you've read the first part in Werewolf By Night #18--still on sale!". And we still usually get the equivalent of this, with notices up front if the story continues directly from an issue of a different series.
So really, it's no big loss as I see it, at least the back issue reference footnotes aren't big losses.
I gotta agree with DDM here. Footnotes did in fact spur me to purchase comics to which they referred. As other noted, footnotes in comics didn't die out until recently - maybe sometime in the late 90s. There were many, many years in which a robust back issue market and footnotes co-existed.

I don't agree with that it would disruptive for a TPB either. Folks can ignore the note if they want to. If the issues are collected in the TPB for a coherent storyline, I don't think it saps enjoyment of the reader at all to note that the events in the TPB are built upon events that occurred in previous comic books. The same reasons I'm interested in past referenced issue exist whether or not I'm reading individual issues or a TPB. I know that most TPBs are part of an ongoing continuity.

I think, in addition to editorial apathy, the lack of footnotes are part of a stylistic change. There's a direction toward comics that are more cinematic and more visual. So there's dialogue, but captions and thought balloons have declined sharply because a lot of movies don't have equivalents to that stuff. And dialogue has become more sparse. I think TPTB want less words impinging on the art, and cutting out footnotes is part of it.

[swinebread]

Sliding timeline & aglessness are irrelvent to citing specific books when referenced in any story.

Obviously I disagree. I really don’t see the point anymore. When a character has been brought back from the dead several times, should be 60 years old and they’re still in their 20s, had their history reinvented a bajillion, plus the universe has been destroyed and rebuilt every few years etc. etc. it offers nothing to current storylines. The footnote information is interesting for the development of comics, and the history comic books in general, but not for a current storyline. I think it is disingenuous to new fans: “wow, I gotta’ buy this comic from 1968 to understand what I’m reading now.” Plus, with the net, there is plenty source of information.
Additionally, I’ve noticed that most references to older storylines are a lot more general.

[DDM]

Obviously I disagree. I really don’t see the point anymore. When a character has been brought back from the dead several times, should be 60 years old and they’re still in their 20s, had their history reinvented a bajillion, plus the universe has been destroyed and rebuilt every few years etc. etc. it offers nothing to current storylines. The footnote information is interesting for the development of comics, and the history comic books in general, but not for a current storyline. I think it is disingenuous to new fans: “wow, I gotta’ buy this comic from 1968 to understand what I’m reading now.” Plus, with the net, there are plenty source of information.
Additionally, I’ve noticed that most references to older storylines are a lot more general.

The original X-Men--who were teens in 1963--should well be in their 40's & 50's now. Likewise, the Fantastic Four, the Avengers, The Hulk, Spider-Man all should well be in their 40-60's years old with the correct linear timeline. However, comics are not linear all of the time. Marvel keeps the characters trapped in their 20-30 years of age on purpose.

You don't need to buy an old comic to understand the story if it is written correctly. The correct way to write any comic is using reader-based writing; therefore, the writers & editors assume the reader has picked the book for the very first time. Footnotes are needed if it is cited in the story to fully understand the reference.

Go back & reader Marvel Comics when Jim Shooter was Marvel's Editor-in-Chief from 1977-1987. You will find references in all the books. References helps the readers. Not refencing stories actually can confuse the readers because the editor has the opportunity to cite the specific issue, yet he or she does not.

[Gingold]

The best thing would be to make comics that didn't dwell on 30-year-old minutia and actually told accessible stories.

But barring that, a quick endnotes page at the end of an issue would do the trick. Considering how much of Marvel and DC's back catalogs are reprinted in book collections, you'd think it would be logical to say - "the X-Men first met the Hellfire Club in issue #XXX, available in Essential X_men vol. II!".

[swinebread]

The original X-Men--who were teens in 1963--should well be in their 40's & 50's now. Likewise, the Fantastic Four, the Avengers, The Hulk, Spider-Man all should well be in their 40-60's years old with the correct linear timeline. However, comics are not linear all of the time. Marvel keeps the characters trapped in their 20-30 years of age on purpose. .

Yes, I know Comics are not linear. That is obvious. So, if comics are not linear, there is no reason for mentioning specific points in a character’s history that don't exist anymore in a modern context. Important events in character’s life have to be reinvented anyway, to make them appear recent.

You don't need to buy an old comic to understand the story if it is written correctly. The correct way to write any comic is using reader-based writing; therefore, the writers & editors assume the reader has picked the book for the very first time. Footnotes are needed if it is cited in the story to fully understand the reference. .

You don’t need to have Footnotes to understand the story if it is written correctly. The reference in the story does not really exist anymore in a modern context anymore. Most of the notes are minutia, and relate to keeping continuity straight, which IMO is pointless when there is a sliding timeline. Yes, we want to reference those moments that are important for building a character’s personality. But do we really what to see that moment in the light of the Disco outfight they were wearing? For “real” comic book history, yes in regards to current storylines, no. With a sliding timeline, a character’s personality is paramount as the events that shaped their behavior become unfixed from the time period when they were written.

Go back & reader Marvel Comics when Jim Shooter was Marvel's Editor-in-Chief from 1977-1987. You will find references in all the books. References helps the readers. Not refencing stories actually can confuse the readers because the editor has the opportunity to cite the specific issue, yet he or she does not.

I was a huge Marvel Fan when I was reading comics in the ‘80s. I still have my comics from that time (thousands of them), plus the numerous back issues I bought because of the footnotes mentioned in the stories. So I understand the nostalgia.

I disagree. Having notes to specific issues that were written decades ago will actually confuse new readers IMO. Does a new reader really have to know that Gwen Stacy was killed in Amazing Spider-Man #122 (vol 1 for that matter)? No, they just need to know it happened and the effect on Peter. Would footnotes in current comics make the stories themselves better? The story is why we read comics after all. No, they are extraneous to the story and would only serve to pull the reader away from the current narrative by reminding them that the event referenced happened four decades ago and the character is 20ish. By committing to a sliding timeline, the point of reverencing specific issues is moot. A good example is Superman, He has been around for so long and been reinvented so many times it’s ridiculous to specifically cite Golden Age stories and issues. Marvel recognized that their characters have aged and so have moved beyond nitpick continuity; they have to if they want their properties to continue.