When I go back and read Marvel books from the 90's, the big thing that strikes me is that the stories have no beginning or ending. The story about Peter's parents returning blends into the close saga blends into the Green Goblin being back blends into the next, and EVERYTHING ends with "To Be Continued".
Well, that may well be true for Marvel. I didn't read more than a handful of Marvel series in the ’90s, as little of it interested me. But I did read quite a few DC titles, and they were pretty well arc-oriented for the most part. And, the pre-Bendis Marvel Knights books (which I read nearly all of) were arc-driven as well, which leads me to believe it was more down to Quesada than it was Bendis, per se.
Yes, Gaiman did it, Moore did it, etc... But Gaiman and Moore weren't writing the flagship books of a company.
True, but that doesn't make them any less influential on their fellow writers. Less noticed by comic book readers in general, perhaps, but not by their peers. And if we're using this point to debate how Bendis or anyone else changed the way comics were written, I think you have give the nod to what influences creators, in which case I don't think you can take Moore or Gaiman out of the equation or downplay their impact.
WAS it a market evolution? I look at Vertigo sales figures from the 90's and while they did well outside comic shops...Sandman's biggest selling issue was projected to have sold 75,000 copies when Spider-Man's weakest series was selling a half million. To move away from Marvel's failing, but still #1, formula of the Claremont-esque soap opera with a side of "Mysterious mastermind we never find out about" that infested most everything the published was a pretty bold risk.
I'm not talking about comic book sales, I'm talking about trade paperback sales. That's what “writing for the trade” is all about after all. Perhaps market evolution was not the term I was looking for, but there was a definite push to try to get into the mainstream bookstore market—not only to tap into new readers, but because the stories were already paid for, so it potentially a much larger return on their investment. Sandman was, I think, the first series to make any headway in that market, and it opened the doors for the superheroes. And I believe it was that desire (perhaps even desperation, as sales hadn't fully recovered at that point) to make the mainstream bookstores a viable market that led Marvel to adopt the standard five-issue story arc. Again, Vertigo had already been using a similar story arc approach for years, and had the breakthrough mainstream success with Sandman.
He and Quesada changed mainstream comics. Just go back and read the people losing their minds over the fact that Marvel wasn't continuity driven and endless soap opera. On-line fans hated it (and really, still do in a lot of places), but their approach has won the day, and brought comic sales up again and again for the last 10 - 15 years.
But I love how you made me think about my points so I could clarify them. Thank you!
Change that first line to “changed Marvel comics” and I’ll happily agree. The difference in how I'm looking at this is that I see Bendis succeeding in large part due to Quesada and the environment he established, while I see Johns succeeding despite the environment at DC.
Anyway, that's what the boards are for, and why this is the only board I participate in. I’ve enjoyed the discussion.
He and Quesada changed mainstream comics. Just go back and read the people losing their minds over the fact that Marvel wasn't continuity driven and endless soap opera. On-line fans hated it (and really, still do in a lot of places), but their approach has won the day, and brought comic sales up again and again for the last 10 - 15 years.
Yep.
He was the poster boy for "writing for the trade" and "decompression".
I voted for Bendis for a very simple reason: He changed how comics are written. He wrote full script when “Marvel Style” was still the norm. He’s a former artist, so he wrote in detail about things like facial expression and body language as well as where the “camera” should be. He didn’t use narrative captioning or thought balloons. On top of that, he brought the three act structure to stories, as the endless running soap opera style of plotting was still in vogue. Remember, when the X-Men movie came out, one of the thing that Marvel’s board was upset about was that there weren’t X-Men trade paperbacks in bookstores, and the reason for that was that Marvel Editorial didn’t much allow for stories with beginnings, middles and ends… Bendis, Quesada and Jemas brought that in (like it or not) and rebuilt mainstream super-hero storytelling to story arcs. Bendis also rebuilt the Avengers into Marvel’s version on the JLA. The Big, Popular characters were a part of it and it was the By God Center of the Marvel Universe. Johns has added a lot to the DC mythos, and has been tapped for their big revamps, but his storytelling style is nothing new, and there’s nothing all that innovative about how he puts a story together. His work is very good, don’t get me wrong, but stylistically, I see very little difference between him and Marv Wolfman, Len Wein or other very good super-hero comic book writers. YMMV
Plot-first was still the norm at Marvel until Quesada was given the Marvel Knights line. His concentration was on story over art, and he wanted his writers to have more control over the story. Quesada brought in writers from film and TV who were used to writing scripts, and Bendis fit right in to what Quesada was looking for. Absolutely Bendis’ writing influenced others, but how much of the overall change was due to Bendis, and how much was because Quesada took over and pushed his all of his writers to take more control over the finished product? And full-script has always been the norm at DC. Marv Wolfman was one of the few there who wrote plot-first.
I don't know of many writers besides Bendis who suggest camera angles any more than writers did before Bendis, but there are plenty of visual writers, and there have been for decades. According to Alan Davis, Mike W. Barr was the most visual writer he's ever worked with. Personally, I think the publication of Alan Moore’s and Neil Gaiman’s scripts in the ’90s made a huge impact on descriptive script writing going forward. I know Matt Fraction counts that as a huge moment in his development as a writer.
I'm not sure if you're saying Bendis rang the death knell on thought balloons and caption boxes or not, but I think they were they already on the way out. It's fair to say Bendis pushed things in that direction, but it's hard to really pin down when that started, much less to pin it down to one writer. But I do know Johns didn't use thought balloons or captions (other than the very occasional box to indicate a new locale) in Stars & STRIPE (1999), his first work for DC.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say Bendis brought in the three-act structure. The three-act structure has been a part of comics since comics began. The neverending soap opera aspect was more prevalent with some writers (Claremont and Wolfman being prime examples) than with others—and was much stronger in Marvel’s titles than in DC’s in general. I assume what you mean, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that Bendis wrote his story arcs to a specific length, generally speaking, and smoothed the transitions from issue to issue within each arc, and broke the transitions from arc to arc more cleanly—or to put it briefly, he wrote for the trade. But as you pointed out, the rise of the importance of trade paperback collections (thanks in large part to Gaiman’s Sandman, and I think on some level thanks to the rise of manga in the US bookstore market) was dictating that change. The evolution of the market was the dominant force in moving superhero storytelling to focus on the story arc, and it would have happened with or without Bendis. After all, he wasn't doing anything the writers for DC’s Vertigo line hadn't already been doing for years (see the superhero-ish Sandman Mystery Theater, for one).
I've already been over my thoughts on Bendis’ Avengers, and I agree with your assessment of Johns’ writing style. Again, I just can't give full marks for things that are not quantifiable. And, like you said, your mileage may vary.
When I go back and read Marvel books from the 90's, the big thing that strikes me is that the stories have no beginning or ending. The story about Peter's parents returning blends into the close saga blends into the Green Goblin being back blends into the next, and EVERYTHING ends with "To Be Continued".
Maybe I misstated when I say Bendis brought in the three act structure, but he did bring it BACK after a couple of decades of the endless on-going story. Bendis had a clear beginning, a clear set of rising action and endings. He structured things for trades, but he also paid off his plot points, something hard to do when your scripting over a fully drawn story.
Yes, Gaiman did it, Moore did it, etc... But Gaiman and Moore weren't writing the flagship books of a company.
WAS it a market evolution? I look at Vertigo sales figures from the 90's and while they did well outside comic shops...Sandman's biggest selling issue was projected to have sold 75,000 copies when Spider-Man's weakest series was selling a half million. To move away from Marvel's failing, but still #1, formula of the Claremont-esque soap opera with a side of "Mysterious mastermind we never find out about" that infested most everything the published was a pretty bold risk.
He and Quesada changed mainstream comics. Just go back and read the people losing their minds over the fact that Marvel wasn't continuity driven and endless soap opera. On-line fans hated it (and really, still do in a lot of places), but their approach has won the day, and brought comic sales up again and again for the last 10 - 15 years.
But I love how you made me think about my points so I could clarify them. Thank you!
That was something I really liked about those issues. Hell, it seemed that way to me in the 80s too. The short story lead into the next, with an ongoing story arc continuing. There could be a single issue, 2-parter, & 6-part stories.
Some of the current stuff seems too compacted into a straight 6 issue storyline. It makes sense because it's ready for trading & get into Barnes & Nobles. It just has always turned me off as a collector.
Some of the current stuff seems too compacted into a straight 6 issue storyline. It makes sense because it's ready for trading & get into Barnes & Nobles. It just has always turned me off as a collector.
M
I certainly complained about it when it started, but I have become a trade-waiting convert.
I think the change to writing for the trade went a long way toward saving comics publishing.
I voted for Bendis for a very simple reason: He changed how comics are written. He wrote full script when “Marvel Style” was still the norm. He’s a former artist, so he wrote in detail about things like facial expression and body language as well as where the “camera” should be. He didn’t use narrative captioning or thought balloons. On top of that, he brought the three act structure to stories, as the endless running soap opera style of plotting was still in vogue. Remember, when the X-Men movie came out, one of the thing that Marvel’s board was upset about was that there weren’t X-Men trade paperbacks in bookstores, and the reason for that was that Marvel Editorial didn’t much allow for stories with beginnings, middles and ends… Bendis, Quesada and Jemas brought that in (like it or not) and rebuilt mainstream super-hero storytelling to story arcs. Bendis also rebuilt the Avengers into Marvel’s version on the JLA. The Big, Popular characters were a part of it and it was the By God Center of the Marvel Universe. Johns has added a lot to the DC mythos, and has been tapped for their big revamps, but his storytelling style is nothing new, and there’s nothing all that innovative about how he puts a story together. His work is very good, don’t get me wrong, but stylistically, I see very little difference between him and Marv Wolfman, Len Wein or other very good super-hero comic book writers. YMMV
Plot-first was still the norm at Marvel until Quesada was given the Marvel Knights line. His concentration was on story over art, and he wanted his writers to have more control over the story. Quesada brought in writers from film and TV who were used to writing scripts, and Bendis fit right in to what Quesada was looking for. Absolutely Bendis’ writing influenced others, but how much of the overall change was due to Bendis, and how much was because Quesada took over and pushed his all of his writers to take more control over the finished product? And full-script has always been the norm at DC. Marv Wolfman was one of the few there who wrote plot-first.
I don't know of many writers besides Bendis who suggest camera angles any more than writers did before Bendis, but there are plenty of visual writers, and there have been for decades. According to Alan Davis, Mike W. Barr was the most visual writer he's ever worked with. Personally, I think the publication of Alan Moore’s and Neil Gaiman’s scripts in the ’90s made a huge impact on descriptive script writing going forward. I know Matt Fraction counts that as a huge moment in his development as a writer.
I'm not sure if you're saying Bendis rang the death knell on thought balloons and caption boxes or not, but I think they were they already on the way out. It's fair to say Bendis pushed things in that direction, but it's hard to really pin down when that started, much less to pin it down to one writer. But I do know Johns didn't use thought balloons or captions (other than the very occasional box to indicate a new locale) in Stars & STRIPE (1999), his first work for DC.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say Bendis brought in the three-act structure. The three-act structure has been a part of comics since comics began. The neverending soap opera aspect was more prevalent with some writers (Claremont and Wolfman being prime examples) than with others—and was much stronger in Marvel’s titles than in DC’s in general. I assume what you mean, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that Bendis wrote his story arcs to a specific length, generally speaking, and smoothed the transitions from issue to issue within each arc, and broke the transitions from arc to arc more cleanly—or to put it briefly, he wrote for the trade. But as you pointed out, the rise of the importance of trade paperback collections (thanks in large part to Gaiman’s Sandman, and I think on some level thanks to the rise of manga in the US bookstore market) was dictating that change. The evolution of the market was the dominant force in moving superhero storytelling to focus on the story arc, and it would have happened with or without Bendis. After all, he wasn't doing anything the writers for DC’s Vertigo line hadn't already been doing for years (see the superhero-ish Sandman Mystery Theater, for one).
I've already been over my thoughts on Bendis’ Avengers, and I agree with your assessment of Johns’ writing style. Again, I just can't give full marks for things that are not quantifiable. And, like you said, your mileage may vary.
When I go back and read Marvel books from the 90's, the big thing that strikes me is that the stories have no beginning or ending. The story about Peter's parents returning blends into the close saga blends into the Green Goblin being back blends into the next, and EVERYTHING ends with "To Be Continued".
Maybe I misstated when I say Bendis brought in the three act structure, but he did bring it BACK after a couple of decades of the endless on-going story. Bendis had a clear beginning, a clear set of rising action and endings. He structured things for trades, but he also paid off his plot points, something hard to do when your scripting over a fully drawn story.
Yes, Gaiman did it, Moore did it, etc... But Gaiman and Moore weren't writing the flagship books of a company.
WAS it a market evolution? I look at Vertigo sales figures from the 90's and while they did well outside comic shops...Sandman's biggest selling issue was projected to have sold 75,000 copies when Spider-Man's weakest series was selling a half million. To move away from Marvel's failing, but still #1, formula of the Claremont-esque soap opera with a side of "Mysterious mastermind we never find out about" that infested most everything the published was a pretty bold risk.
He and Quesada changed mainstream comics. Just go back and read the people losing their minds over the fact that Marvel wasn't continuity driven and endless soap opera. On-line fans hated it (and really, still do in a lot of places), but their approach has won the day, and brought comic sales up again and again for the last 10 - 15 years.
But I love how you made me think about my points so I could clarify them. Thank you!
That was something I really liked about those issues. Hell, it seemed that way to me in the 80s too. The short story lead into the next, with an ongoing story arc continuing. There could be a single issue, 2-parter, & 6-part stories.
Some of the current stuff seems too compacted into a straight 6 issue storyline. It makes sense because it's ready for trading & get into Barnes & Nobles. It just has always turned me off as a collector.
M
As a kid, I would always turn to the last page of a comic to see if it was continued. If it was, I'd put it back because I had no idea if I could get the next issue. I like the story arc format because there's so much coming out, I can't keep track of what is going on in everything, so if you don't have start and stop points, I tap out.
I have two jobs, a house, relationships, novels, family, TV, podcasts, fitness, bills, etc... If you are ALSO asking me to remember minor characters from 4 months ago dropping a subplot point or another "mysterious villain behind the scenes with ill defined powers who may work for the government", I'm sorry, but unless you are Alan Moore or Grant Morrison, I'm not going to put in the time. Entertain me with one comic or I am moving on.
Some of the current stuff seems too compacted into a straight 6 issue storyline. It makes sense because it's ready for trading & get into Barnes & Nobles. It just has always turned me off as a collector.
M
I certainly complained about it when it started, but I have become a trade-waiting convert.
I think the change to writing for the trade went a long way toward saving comics publishing.
I completely understand why they did/do it. They already "have" the floppy book readers. Expansion is through the non-comic book outlets.
Some of the current stuff seems too compacted into a straight 6 issue storyline. It makes sense because it's ready for trading & get into Barnes & Nobles. It just has always turned me off as a collector.
M
I certainly complained about it when it started, but I have become a trade-waiting convert.
I think the change to writing for the trade went a long way toward saving comics publishing.
I completely understand why they did/do it. They already "have" the floppy book readers. Expansion is through the non-comic book outlets.
M
But the supply of floppy readers they "had" was steadily diminishing.
The tactic of selling more and more books to the same people was beginning to fail.
He and Quesada changed mainstream comics. Just go back and read the people losing their minds over the fact that Marvel wasn't continuity driven and endless soap opera. On-line fans hated it (and really, still do in a lot of places), but their approach has won the day, and brought comic sales up again and again for the last 10 - 15 years.
Yep.
He was the poster boy for "writing for the trade" and "decompression".
So where exactly did the [Edit: writing] for the trade approach begin? I've been trying to figure it out, and I'm not having any luck pinning it down. I had assumed it started with the Ultimate comics line, but those first two or three years of Ultimate Spidey were not done with that approach. There are a lot of single-issue and two-issue stories early on. Ultimate FF, on the other hand, was made up of six-issue arcs right from the start, and Ultimates was designed to be a “season” length, as it were.
He and Quesada changed mainstream comics. Just go back and read the people losing their minds over the fact that Marvel wasn't continuity driven and endless soap opera. On-line fans hated it (and really, still do in a lot of places), but their approach has won the day, and brought comic sales up again and again for the last 10 - 15 years.
Yep.
He was the poster boy for "writing for the trade" and "decompression".
So where exactly did the waiting for the trade approach begin? I've been trying to figure it out, and I'm not having any luck pinning it down. I had assumed it started with the Ultimate comics line, but those first two or three years of Ultimate Spidey were not done with that approach. There are a lot of single-issue and two-issue stories early on. Ultimate FF, on the other hand, was made up of six-issue arcs right from the start, and Ultimates was designed to be a “season” length, as it were.
Thoughts, ideas?
I associate the initial idea of reading by trade (not sure if that is the same as waiting for the trade or not) with Vertigo titles. Though I don't recall whether the popularity of books like Sandman and Preacher trades predate Bendis on Marvel books, or are basically at the same time.
And I wonder, and this is less about the popularity with readers and more of the leadership at the Big 2 watching others innovate-- but how much of the writing for the trade/waiting for the trade model may have been influenced by things like The Cerebus phonebooks? Or independent series that thrived more as collected editions than singles starting to keep that collected edition in mind? I would imagine that, after a few collections, Hellboy started pacing itself with the trades in mind by the mid to late 90s, right?
Also, and this may be anecdotal to my reading, but I remember one of the first big wait for the trades when it came to superhero titles for me were the Batman trades collecting Bat-office crossovers like No Man's Land, and the various interconnected stories that followed.
Like the prior Death of Superman/Reign of The Supermen, and Knightfall, these were not necessarily written FOR the trade, but I think by the time they got to No Man's Land, I think they knew that the collected editions they could make out of the crossover was a part of the publishing plan. And I know for me, that was a great way for me to catch up a bit and read a lot of Batman after being away from the character (and, mostly, from comics) for a few years.
The Grant Morrison Justice League was also something that I read in trade, either before or around the same time Bendis was at Marvel. And that run on Justice League seemed to (with the exception of an occasional fill-in issue), be formatted with trades in mind.
EDIT- Again, this may be anecdotal to my own reading life, but when I think of trades, I think of those dog-earred books that I used to lend out to friends back when good comics that even grown-ups could enjoy were this thing you felt like you knew about, but it wasn't big in the culture yet (and not yet it's own section in the library or bookstore). When I think of what I had and used to lend out or borrow back then, I feel like it went from being collections of Big Important Miniseries (Watchmen, Dark Knight, V for Vendetta) to then being those with a few OGNs mixed, like Arkham Asylum. And then the next wave were mature readers series from DC, which were on their way to being Vertigo series (Sandman, that first Hellblazer trade, Alan Moore Swamp Thing trades, Preacher), and it was during that time when I was also seeing a lot of Cerebus books, Hellboy trades, and some other collected independents starting to circulate.
I feel like, at the point when those were established, and then things like Robinson and Harris on Starman, Morrison and Porter and others on Justice League, and later some of the Bendis and Johns series, got going, DC and Marvel could get behind going more collectible trade focused on their superhero ongoings, because they had already seen it work at Vertigo, and with some independents.
TLDR follow-up-- For what it is worth. I do think that Bendis (along with Johns) were leaders in a wave of Big 2 heading towards a 'for the trade' model. But I actually don't associate that strongly with either of them. I feel like it was already going on, mostly outside of the Big 2, but was being taken on by Marvel and the DCU before both of them got hot.
He and Quesada changed mainstream comics. Just go back and read the people losing their minds over the fact that Marvel wasn't continuity driven and endless soap opera. On-line fans hated it (and really, still do in a lot of places), but their approach has won the day, and brought comic sales up again and again for the last 10 - 15 years.
Yep.
He was the poster boy for "writing for the trade" and "decompression".
So where exactly did the waiting for the trade approach begin? I've been trying to figure it out, and I'm not having any luck pinning it down. I had assumed it started with the Ultimate comics line, but those first two or three years of Ultimate Spidey were not done with that approach. There are a lot of single-issue and two-issue stories early on. Ultimate FF, on the other hand, was made up of six-issue arcs right from the start, and Ultimates was designed to be a “season” length, as it were.
Thoughts, ideas?
I associate the initial idea of reading by trade (not sure if that is the same as waiting for the trade or not) with Vertigo titles. Though I don't recall whether the popularity of books like Sandman and Preacher trades predate Bendis on Marvel books, or are basically at the same time.
Also, and this may be anecdotal to my reading, but I remember one of the first big wait for the trades when it came to superhero titles for me were the Batman trades collecting Bat-office crossovers like No Man's Land, and the various interconnected stories that followed.
Like the prior Death of Superman/Reign of The Supermen, and Knightfall, these were not necessarily written FOR the trade, but I think by the time they got to No Man's Land, I think they knew that the collected editions they could make out of the crossover was a part of the publishing plan. And I know for me, that was a great way for me to catch up a bit and read a lot of Batman after being away from the character (and, mostly, from comics) for a few years.
The Grant Morrison Justice League was also something that I read in trade, either before or around the same time Bendis was at Marvel. And that run on Justice League seemed to (with the exception of an occasional fill-in issue), be formatted with trades in mind.
All of that adds up with my recollections as well, and yes, the Sandman collections started coming out ten years before Bendis started writing for Marvel. I think the three-volume slipcase edition came out in 1990 or 1991. But Gaiman wasn't writing to any specific length. However long the stories needed to be, that's what they were. And Morrison’s JLA (1997) consisted of five- to seven-issue long stories—the story length wasn't set in stone.
When I think of the term “writing (not waiting) for the trade,” I think of writing each story arc to a specific length to maintain a specific price point on the ensuing TPB collections. I think of it as a derogatory term (though some people can do it very well), as it puts the economic side of the business squarely above the creative side. It's the difference between “write the best stories you can” and “write the best six-issue stories you can.” And I think Bendis often had trouble with that, which is part of the reason he is widely proclaimed as the poster boy of the approach. Because he is such a good writer, the flaws in the storytelling when he tries to force a three-issue story to be a five-issue story stand out and scream for attention.
He and Quesada changed mainstream comics. Just go back and read the people losing their minds over the fact that Marvel wasn't continuity driven and endless soap opera. On-line fans hated it (and really, still do in a lot of places), but their approach has won the day, and brought comic sales up again and again for the last 10 - 15 years.
Yep.
He was the poster boy for "writing for the trade" and "decompression".
So where exactly did the waiting for the trade approach begin? I've been trying to figure it out, and I'm not having any luck pinning it down. I had assumed it started with the Ultimate comics line, but those first two or three years of Ultimate Spidey were not done with that approach. There are a lot of single-issue and two-issue stories early on. Ultimate FF, on the other hand, was made up of six-issue arcs right from the start, and Ultimates was designed to be a “season” length, as it were.
Thoughts, ideas?
I'm not sure.
It was certainly pioneered by Vertigo. Sandman was the first series I read in trades as they came out.
It seemed to be happening right around the time this online community was forming, and before the various other podcasts began spawning, as it was a constant source of discussion on the Old Old Old Old Old Old Forum.
He and Quesada changed mainstream comics. Just go back and read the people losing their minds over the fact that Marvel wasn't continuity driven and endless soap opera. On-line fans hated it (and really, still do in a lot of places), but their approach has won the day, and brought comic sales up again and again for the last 10 - 15 years.
Yep.
He was the poster boy for "writing for the trade" and "decompression".
So where exactly did the waiting for the trade approach begin? I've been trying to figure it out, and I'm not having any luck pinning it down. I had assumed it started with the Ultimate comics line, but those first two or three years of Ultimate Spidey were not done with that approach. There are a lot of single-issue and two-issue stories early on. Ultimate FF, on the other hand, was made up of six-issue arcs right from the start, and Ultimates was designed to be a “season” length, as it were.
Thoughts, ideas?
I associate the initial idea of reading by trade (not sure if that is the same as waiting for the trade or not) with Vertigo titles. Though I don't recall whether the popularity of books like Sandman and Preacher trades predate Bendis on Marvel books, or are basically at the same time.
Also, and this may be anecdotal to my reading, but I remember one of the first big wait for the trades when it came to superhero titles for me were the Batman trades collecting Bat-office crossovers like No Man's Land, and the various interconnected stories that followed.
Like the prior Death of Superman/Reign of The Supermen, and Knightfall, these were not necessarily written FOR the trade, but I think by the time they got to No Man's Land, I think they knew that the collected editions they could make out of the crossover was a part of the publishing plan. And I know for me, that was a great way for me to catch up a bit and read a lot of Batman after being away from the character (and, mostly, from comics) for a few years.
The Grant Morrison Justice League was also something that I read in trade, either before or around the same time Bendis was at Marvel. And that run on Justice League seemed to (with the exception of an occasional fill-in issue), be formatted with trades in mind.
All of that adds up with my recollections as well, and yes, the Sandman collections started coming out ten years before Bendis started writing for Marvel. I think the three-volume slipcase edition came out in 1990 or 1991. But Gaiman wasn't writing to any specific length. However long the stories needed to be, that's what they were. And Morrison’s JLA (1997) consisted of five- to seven-issue long stories—the story length wasn't set in stone.
When I think of the term “writing (not waiting) for the trade,” I think of writing each story arc to a specific length to maintain a specific price point on the ensuing TPB collections. I think of it as a derogatory term (though some people can do it very well), as it puts the economic side of the business squarely above the creative side. It's the difference between “write the best stories you can” and “write the best six-issue stories you can.” And I think Bendis often had trouble with that, which is part of the reason he is widely proclaimed as the poster boy of the approach. Because he is such a good writer, the flaws in the storytelling when he tries to force a three-issue story to be a five-issue story stand out and scream for attention.
That's interesting-- I had never noticed that, about arcs often (always?) being exactly 6 issues to keep a steady price point. That makes sense, though. And that people's varying feelings about his success with that format (as well as the fact that he was writing such a high-profile book in New Avengers) would make him synonymous with that trend.
He and Quesada changed mainstream comics. Just go back and read the people losing their minds over the fact that Marvel wasn't continuity driven and endless soap opera. On-line fans hated it (and really, still do in a lot of places), but their approach has won the day, and brought comic sales up again and again for the last 10 - 15 years.
Yep.
He was the poster boy for "writing for the trade" and "decompression".
So where exactly did the waiting for the trade approach begin? I've been trying to figure it out, and I'm not having any luck pinning it down. I had assumed it started with the Ultimate comics line, but those first two or three years of Ultimate Spidey were not done with that approach. There are a lot of single-issue and two-issue stories early on. Ultimate FF, on the other hand, was made up of six-issue arcs right from the start, and Ultimates was designed to be a “season” length, as it were.
Thoughts, ideas?
I'm not sure.
It was certainly pioneered by Vertigo. Sandman was the first series I read in trades as they came out.
It seemed to be happening right around the time this online community was forming, and before the various other podcasts began spawning, as it was a constant source of discussion on the Old Old Old Old Old Old Forum.
I remember a lot of discussions of it around that time, too. Although, at that point, I wonder if it was because 'writing for the trade' had become the house style at both of the Big 2, and after a few years of it, fans were at the pushback point?
It seemed to be happening right around the time this online community was forming, and before the various other podcasts began spawning, as it was a constant source of discussion on the Old Old Old Old Old Old Forum.
I remember a lot of discussions of it around that time, too. Although, at that point, I wonder if it was because 'writing for the trade' had become the house style at both of the Big 2, and after a few years of it, fans were at the pushback point?
It could well be that as we all started talking amongst ourselves we became aware of the trend that had been quietly going on for a while.*
*And then got all worked up about it, of course. ;)
A question-- and probably @nweathington will be able to answer it, but I don't assume that others don't know or haven't noticed this--
Is there still a push to write for exactly the 6 issue trade? I barely buy any trades anymore, especially of Big 2 (either I like 'em enough to get the singles; or with Marvel, to get the Marvel code in trade, or else I wait and read them later on Marvel Unlimited). But years ago when I was buying more trades, I remember starting to notice that the price point for Big 2 trades were starting to be all over the place, as well as not knowing whether they were going to go for hardcovers first or softcovers first. I wonder, at the point where they were starting to vary on price point that way, if that also loosened up the idea that all collections should be 6 issues?
Yeah, I think that's still the goal, at least for most books, though the per-page pricing does seem to vary somewhat from title to title, particularly at Marvel. That's probably due to adjustments for expected print run sizes, but I'm not entirely sure of that. The Image books tend to have very consistent page counts/price points too, though I think Fatale is four issues per trade.
He and Quesada changed mainstream comics. Just go back and read the people losing their minds over the fact that Marvel wasn't continuity driven and endless soap opera. On-line fans hated it (and really, still do in a lot of places), but their approach has won the day, and brought comic sales up again and again for the last 10 - 15 years.
Yep.
He was the poster boy for "writing for the trade" and "decompression".
So where exactly did the waiting for the trade approach begin? I've been trying to figure it out, and I'm not having any luck pinning it down. I had assumed it started with the Ultimate comics line, but those first two or three years of Ultimate Spidey were not done with that approach. There are a lot of single-issue and two-issue stories early on. Ultimate FF, on the other hand, was made up of six-issue arcs right from the start, and Ultimates was designed to be a “season” length, as it were.
Thoughts, ideas?
I'm not sure.
It was certainly pioneered by Vertigo. Sandman was the first series I read in trades as they came out.
It seemed to be happening right around the time this online community was forming, and before the various other podcasts began spawning, as it was a constant source of discussion on the Old Old Old Old Old Old Forum.
The first time I remember the trade being a big deal was Dark Knight. There were trades before, but they certainly weren't the focus of publishers. Many farmed them out to other companies (DC with Graphitti and others). But when the limited hardcover of Dark Knight was announced, CBG EXPLODED with angry letters from people upset that the collection would be limited, to when DC had to say they would publish a mass market trade.
Sandman is probably the first series that was traded all the way through and sold better in that format. I even remember going to sales conferences and telling Marvel and DC that if they collected their series in trades covering a half year or year, I could sell them like crazy, since the shop I was at was also a newsstand that had casual readers. DC had books available before every movie. Before the 1989 Batman movie, they had "Best Batman Stories" and "Best Joker Stories" available, as well as The Cult, Death In The Family, Dark Knight and some others.
When Blade came, Marvel had crickets. When X-Men came out, I seem to remember that Death of the Phoenix was the only trade we could get, the rest were out of print.
DC had a great trade program in the 90's, and Marvel's was...a mess. Half of the time they'd just throw a bunch of random stories together around a theme and sell that.
A question-- and probably @nweathington will be able to answer it, but I don't assume that others don't know or haven't noticed this--
Is there still a push to write for exactly the 6 issue trade? I barely buy any trades anymore, especially of Big 2 (either I like 'em enough to get the singles; or with Marvel, to get the Marvel code in trade, or else I wait and read them later on Marvel Unlimited). But years ago when I was buying more trades, I remember starting to notice that the price point for Big 2 trades were starting to be all over the place, as well as not knowing whether they were going to go for hardcovers first or softcovers first. I wonder, at the point where they were starting to vary on price point that way, if that also loosened up the idea that all collections should be 6 issues?
They do seem to stick to the 5 - 7 issue format, unless it's an event. Those tend to be bigger, but they also get to put that in a hardcover they can charge more for.
I have moved to hardcovers of the stuff I REALLY like and digital for most everything else. Comics take up too much room when you've been collecting for 40 years.
Comments
Anyway, that's what the boards are for, and why this is the only board I participate in. I’ve enjoyed the discussion.
He was the poster boy for "writing for the trade" and "decompression".
Some of the current stuff seems too compacted into a straight 6 issue storyline. It makes sense because it's ready for trading & get into Barnes & Nobles. It just has always turned me off as a collector.
M
I think the change to writing for the trade went a long way toward saving comics publishing.
I have two jobs, a house, relationships, novels, family, TV, podcasts, fitness, bills, etc... If you are ALSO asking me to remember minor characters from 4 months ago dropping a subplot point or another "mysterious villain behind the scenes with ill defined powers who may work for the government", I'm sorry, but unless you are Alan Moore or Grant Morrison, I'm not going to put in the time. Entertain me with one comic or I am moving on.
M
The tactic of selling more and more books to the same people was beginning to fail.
Thoughts, ideas?
And I wonder, and this is less about the popularity with readers and more of the leadership at the Big 2 watching others innovate-- but how much of the writing for the trade/waiting for the trade model may have been influenced by things like The Cerebus phonebooks? Or independent series that thrived more as collected editions than singles starting to keep that collected edition in mind? I would imagine that, after a few collections, Hellboy started pacing itself with the trades in mind by the mid to late 90s, right?
Also, and this may be anecdotal to my reading, but I remember one of the first big wait for the trades when it came to superhero titles for me were the Batman trades collecting Bat-office crossovers like No Man's Land, and the various interconnected stories that followed.
Like the prior Death of Superman/Reign of The Supermen, and Knightfall, these were not necessarily written FOR the trade, but I think by the time they got to No Man's Land, I think they knew that the collected editions they could make out of the crossover was a part of the publishing plan. And I know for me, that was a great way for me to catch up a bit and read a lot of Batman after being away from the character (and, mostly, from comics) for a few years.
The Grant Morrison Justice League was also something that I read in trade, either before or around the same time Bendis was at Marvel. And that run on Justice League seemed to (with the exception of an occasional fill-in issue), be formatted with trades in mind.
EDIT- Again, this may be anecdotal to my own reading life, but when I think of trades, I think of those dog-earred books that I used to lend out to friends back when good comics that even grown-ups could enjoy were this thing you felt like you knew about, but it wasn't big in the culture yet (and not yet it's own section in the library or bookstore). When I think of what I had and used to lend out or borrow back then, I feel like it went from being collections of Big Important Miniseries (Watchmen, Dark Knight, V for Vendetta) to then being those with a few OGNs mixed, like Arkham Asylum. And then the next wave were mature readers series from DC, which were on their way to being Vertigo series (Sandman, that first Hellblazer trade, Alan Moore Swamp Thing trades, Preacher), and it was during that time when I was also seeing a lot of Cerebus books, Hellboy trades, and some other collected independents starting to circulate.
I feel like, at the point when those were established, and then things like Robinson and Harris on Starman, Morrison and Porter and others on Justice League, and later some of the Bendis and Johns series, got going, DC and Marvel could get behind going more collectible trade focused on their superhero ongoings, because they had already seen it work at Vertigo, and with some independents.
When I think of the term “writing (not waiting) for the trade,” I think of writing each story arc to a specific length to maintain a specific price point on the ensuing TPB collections. I think of it as a derogatory term (though some people can do it very well), as it puts the economic side of the business squarely above the creative side. It's the difference between “write the best stories you can” and “write the best six-issue stories you can.” And I think Bendis often had trouble with that, which is part of the reason he is widely proclaimed as the poster boy of the approach. Because he is such a good writer, the flaws in the storytelling when he tries to force a three-issue story to be a five-issue story stand out and scream for attention.
It was certainly pioneered by Vertigo. Sandman was the first series I read in trades as they came out.
It seemed to be happening right around the time this online community was forming, and before the various other podcasts began spawning, as it was a constant source of discussion on the Old Old Old Old Old Old Forum.
*And then got all worked up about it, of course. ;)
Is there still a push to write for exactly the 6 issue trade? I barely buy any trades anymore, especially of Big 2 (either I like 'em enough to get the singles; or with Marvel, to get the Marvel code in trade, or else I wait and read them later on Marvel Unlimited). But years ago when I was buying more trades, I remember starting to notice that the price point for Big 2 trades were starting to be all over the place, as well as not knowing whether they were going to go for hardcovers first or softcovers first. I wonder, at the point where they were starting to vary on price point that way, if that also loosened up the idea that all collections should be 6 issues?
*Defiantly non-digital reader that I remain.**
**I can shake my fist at a cloud with the best of 'em, despite being a futurist at heart.
Sandman is probably the first series that was traded all the way through and sold better in that format. I even remember going to sales conferences and telling Marvel and DC that if they collected their series in trades covering a half year or year, I could sell them like crazy, since the shop I was at was also a newsstand that had casual readers. DC had books available before every movie. Before the 1989 Batman movie, they had "Best Batman Stories" and "Best Joker Stories" available, as well as The Cult, Death In The Family, Dark Knight and some others.
When Blade came, Marvel had crickets. When X-Men came out, I seem to remember that Death of the Phoenix was the only trade we could get, the rest were out of print.
DC had a great trade program in the 90's, and Marvel's was...a mess. Half of the time they'd just throw a bunch of random stories together around a theme and sell that.
I have moved to hardcovers of the stuff I REALLY like and digital for most everything else. Comics take up too much room when you've been collecting for 40 years.