Does anyone here still buy current books?

[rob_react]

The New Marvel super hero stuff seems cartoonish in style. (everyone's entitled to an opinion)

 

Curious comment, that. There certainly are some people who do a more cartoony style, but there are plenty of people doing blindingly realistic artwork for Marvel these days (not that I'm the biggest fan of Marvel at the moment.)

Rob if you point me in the right direction I will be more than glad to give anything a try.

But here's what I was talking about. I realize that the phrase cartoonish is going to rub someone wrong, but I've heard the phrase many times from others as well.

It's kind of hard to describe.

Above is art from Asm 69. This is what I like.

Below is ast from Asm 519, it's OK but not exactly what I like.

It's all in the eye of the beholder. Both are good artists, I merely prefer one over the other, and can't get enough of one particular era.

 

I would call Romita as the more cartoonish of the two, by a wide margin. That's why I found your comment curious. Romita distills the human form down to simpler components, someone like Deodato, while he definitely adds some flair to the proceedings, does a much more complete, realistic job of representing the human form and environments. For some concrete examples, in the image you've posted he shows more realistic, advanced lighting (see the use of two light sources) and draws infinitely more detailed figures. He's one of the last guys I would refer to as cartoonish.

 

Of course, you don't have to like the style, I just think you're mis-characterising it for the sake of this discussion.

[Scrooge]

The New Marvel super hero stuff seems cartoonish in style. (everyone's entitled to an opinion)

 

Curious comment, that. There certainly are some people who do a more cartoony style, but there are plenty of people doing blindingly realistic artwork for Marvel these days (not that I'm the biggest fan of Marvel at the moment.)

Rob if you point me in the right direction I will be more than glad to give anything a try.

But here's what I was talking about. I realize that the phrase cartoonish is going to rub someone wrong, but I've heard the phrase many times from others as well.

It's kind of hard to describe.

Above is art from Asm 69. This is what I like.

Below is ast from Asm 519, it's OK but not exactly what I like.

It's all in the eye of the beholder. Both are good artists, I merely prefer one over the other, and can't get enough of one particular era.

 

I would call Romita as the more cartoonish of the two, by a wide margin. That's why I found your comment curious. Romita distills the human form down to simpler components, someone like Deodato, while he definitely adds some flair to the proceedings, does a much more complete, realistic job of representing the human form and environments. For some concrete examples, in the image you've posted he shows more realistic, advanced lighting (see the use of two light sources) and draws infinitely more detailed figures. He's one of the last guys I would refer to as cartoonish.

 

Of course, you don't have to like the style, I just think you're mis-characterising it for the sake of this discussion.

 

Rob,

 

I took Mica's comment to mean he prefers more cartoonish art to more realistic art and presented an example of each to show which he clearly preferred. I don't think his intent was to contrast Romita to Deodato per se but just to point out why current offerings are less attractive to him.

 

Of course as you pointed out his comparison has really nothing to do with enjoying storylines but that's something I will also discuss in my upcoming response to Julius. Stay tuned.

[mica]

Agreed Julius.

BTW, the things that I have stated in this thread, I would not repeat in the Modern forum. This is the Silver forum and I'm a Silver guy. I am not embarrassed at all to be known as a Gold/Silver/Bronze guy and have my opinions.

But I wouldn't go to the Modern forums and tell the modern readers there that they are wasting there time. I'm glad they enjoy Moderns. And wouldn't want to talk them out of it.

 

Ian collects DC's, but I would never waste my time trying to convince him that Silver Marvel is superior. He likes what he likes and I like what I like.

I knew it was risky getting into this thread, but wanted to help Julius.

[mica]

I would call Romita as the more cartoonish of the two, by a wide margin. That's why I found your comment curious.

He's one of the last guys I would refer to as cartoonish.

 

Of course, you don't have to like the style, I just think you're mis-characterising it for the sake of this discussion.

Yes Rob you are correct when it comes to the word cartoonish. I should have used a basic sketch of Spidey to demonstrate that the 60's looks like a man wearing a costume, while more recent (and 90's) art made the Spidey character seem like a weird alien.

Cartoony was used improperly but I couldn't figure out how to explain it. Does this make more sense?

[rob_react]

 

Rob,

 

I took Mica's comment to mean he prefers more cartoonish art to more realistic art and presented an example of each to show which he clearly preferred. I don't think his intent was to contrast Romita to Deodato per se but just to point out why current offerings are less attractive to him.

 

I guess I'm just confused because he characterized Marvel's current superhero offerings as more "cartoonish" and then basically offered up a cartoonist as an example of what he likes

[Scrooge]

Speaking of Avengers, I have the trade for Avengers Forever (maybe that's not exactly a modern) and while I liked it, I didn't find the storytelling to be on par with Avengers as I remember it. I have read several early issues of JLA and JSA which, to be fair, I did find entertaining, but the stories and art were sometimes...confusing. (This from a guy who mastered the pre-Crisis DC Universe before the age of 8!) Maybe having read earlier JLA/JSA titles worked against me, as it was hard to tell what still "counted" and what didn't. I found that frustrating, and I didn't like the 'exaggerated' art style. And these were the titles fans were raving about.

 

Granted that JSA relies heavily on (sometimes obscure) DC history but I had NEVER (JLA, Batman nor Superman) read a continuity DC book until I picked up JSA and I can follow it pretty well so it's not an impossible task. JSA has gone through several artists in its most recent run and art-quality has varied but I rarely found the anatomical exaggerations to be extreme to detract from the story-line. Actually I find the artwork to be rather tame in that sense (except for some representations of say Atom Smasher at times and Black Adam sometimes).

 

I'm certainly not trying to talk anyone out of buying something they enjoy. Maybe today's comics are just different, not better or worse. But, as I said to someone, back in the day writers and artists would spend decaded honing their craft, whereas nowadays there seem to be a lot of under-30s who get touted as "the next big thing". Yes, I know this was true of Neal Adams once, but back then, it seemed like DC and Marvel staffs were like major-league rosters - once in awhile a talented rookie would come up from the farm system, but you could pretty much recognize the players from year to year.

 

I am not sure what your point here is. In a sense (and this is also reflected in your next set of comments) you seem more mad at the form of the industry than at the content. If we like it or not, we are living in a different age where: 1) comics have to be touted to be sold, far gone are the days where they would simply bought off the stands, 2) artists are receiving recognitions and no longer are we hyping the hero but the writing / pencilling team, 3) there is an organized fan following with online and offline publications dedicated to cover the industry. Wouldn't Gil Kane, Joe Kubert, John Romita Sr. among others have received wide coverage when they started considering there were all still in high-school !!! when they cracked into pro ranks in the '40s.

 

You are right in pointing out that during the Silver Age artists receiving the most attention had been at it for over 15 years and all were accomplished artists. However, you are forgetting two things:

 

1) first, they were all "greats" because the fat had been cut out of the industry in the late fifties and the third tiers (and to some extent second guns) had to go back to advertising jobs or animation jobs to keep an income. The reason Stan had Jack K. , John B. , Steve D., Gene C., John R. Sr. ready to work for him is because he had the pick of the litter (and was smart to have maintained great contacts with all these guys through the tough years, handing out assignments he knew he couldn't publish within their limited rosters) and

 

2) the industry has clearly refocused on super-heroes in their current offerings and any new hot guy will be assigned to the bread and butter of the industry and touted accordingly. Recall that all cited above are associated in our collective fannish mind to super-hero books. We are NOT talking about the Marvel stallwart who slaved in the Millies and Rawhides of the world: Larry Lieber, Jack Keller and so many others ... We have a distorted history of the (Heroic) Silver Age in that sense.

 

Maybe that's not a great analogy, I'm not familiar with employment practices at those companies now. Although I do know they hire a lot of "big name" writers for major books (Orson Scott Card, Kevin Smith, J. Michael Strazynski, for example), who may be good writers but may not be experts at the comic book medium the way Stan Lee, Roy Thomas, and (especially) Alan Moore are/were.

 

I think the industry could get out better products with these big name writers as you call them if the industry had better editorial controls in place. Interestingly, two of the experts you name, both Stan and Roy, were also solid editors (so much so, they could rein in their own scripts). I simply don't think big name writers are handled by the appropriate editors.

 

Of course, all of this is open to discussion.

[rob_react]

I would call Romita as the more cartoonish of the two, by a wide margin. That's why I found your comment curious.

He's one of the last guys I would refer to as cartoonish.

 

Of course, you don't have to like the style, I just think you're mis-characterising it for the sake of this discussion.

Yes Rob you are correct when it comes to the word cartoonish. I should have used a basic sketch of Spidey to demonstrate that the 60's looks like a man wearing a costume, while more recent (and 90's) art made the Spidey character seem like a weird alien.

Cartoony was used improperly but I couldn't figure out how to explain it. Does this make more sense?

 

Yes, it does, although there really is no blanket way to describe current art. Which helps to explain why you got me confused. Especially since there are people who have truly "cartoony" styles working today- Stuart Immonen, Ed McGunness, any number of manga-influenced artists, etc. Really, there are many dozens of styles in place at even the big two right now.

 

Of course, this is all just a matter of perception, because neither Jack Kirby or Steve Ditko, to name two Silver Age giants, drew simple "men wearing costumes." They were both VERY stylized. It's just a style that you, presumably prefer.

[rob_react]

 

Well, I got a free Hulk issue at my LCS a couple of years ago which I wasn't too impressed with as not a lot seemed to happen in the 20 pages or so. The art was also kind of murky and hard to follow. I've also looked through some Superman and Batman recently and barely recognized the characters. I haven't seen much of the post-Busiek Avengers, but other boards consider it absolute drek (and based on their descriptions, likely so would I). I can flip through a Superman or Batman comic at the LCS in less than a minute and pretty much get everything; it seems to be (subjectively) that there was a lot more meat in the '70s-'80s issues.

 

Okay. That's not exactly the widest sampling and it doesn't really seem like you hit any actual quality books in your sample, (unlucky break there) so there's really not much for me to say.

 

People could recommend some titles, if you were interested, but, as I'm well aware, some people just like old comics.

[JuliusSeizure]

Agreed Julius.

BTW, the things that I have stated in this thread, I would not repeat in the Modern forum. This is the Silver forum and I'm a Silver guy. I am not embarrassed at all to be known as a Gold/Silver/Bronze guy and have my opinions.

But I wouldn't go to the Modern forums and tell the modern readers there that they are wasting there time. I'm glad they enjoy Moderns. And wouldn't want to talk them out of it.

 

Ian collects DC's, but I would never waste my time trying to convince him that Silver Marvel is superior. He likes what he likes and I like what I like.

I knew it was risky getting into this thread, but wanted to help Julius.

I always appreciate a little backup! And the nifty avatar you gave me.

 

And I agree, I wouldn't post these thoughts in the Modern forum either. Unless someone specifically asked me, maybe, and even then I'd be diplomatic. I'm not here to rag on what anyone else likes.

[JuliusSeizure]

I am not sure what your point here is. In a sense (and this is also reflected in your next set of comments) you seem more mad at the form of the industry than at the content. If we like it or not, we are living in a different age where: 1) comics have to be touted to be sold, far gone are the days where they would simply bought off the stands, 2) artists are receiving recognitions and no longer are we hyping the hero but the writing / pencilling team, 3) there is an organized fan following with online and offline publications dedicated to cover the industry. Wouldn't Gil Kane, Joe Kubert, John Romita Sr. among others have received wide coverage when they started considering there were all still in high-school !!! when they cracked into pro ranks in the '40s.

Right, but the form dictates the content, or at least the two go together. My impression is that the hype given to the creators and titles detracts from the quality in the long-term sense. It's short-term vs. long-term thinking. For example, creators with wildly different visions are rotated through the same titles, whereas in the SA and BA, it was more common for a team to stick with a title longer and really find their 'sea legs' so to speak. Of course, a creator can stay TOO long on one title (Hi, Chris Claremont), but that's beside the point.

 

You are right in pointing out that during the Silver Age artists receiving the most attention had been at it for over 15 years and all were accomplished artists. However, you are forgetting two things:

 

1) first, they were all "greats" because the fat had been cut out of the industry in the late fifties and the third tiers (and to some extent second guns) had to go back to advertising jobs or animation jobs to keep an income. The reason Stan had Jack K. , John B. , Steve D., Gene C., John R. Sr. ready to work for him is because he had the pick of the litter (and was smart to have maintained great contacts with all these guys through the tough years, handing out assignments he knew he couldn't publish within their limited rosters) and

 

2) the industry has clearly refocused on super-heroes in their current offerings and any new hot guy will be assigned to the bread and butter of the industry and touted accordingly. Recall that all cited above are associated in our collective fannish mind to super-hero books. We are NOT talking about the Marvel stallwart who slaved in the Millies and Rawhides of the world: Larry Lieber, Jack Keller and so many others ... We have a distorted history of the (Heroic) Silver Age in that sense.

OK, but I think there's a different mentality than there was then. I feel that, 20-40 years ago, the comics industry was a lot more business-like. I'm using that word to mean 'professional', not 'corporatist'. For example, people I know who collect moderns always complain about books shipping late. That never used to happen; if the creators were late, they would at least publish a reprint, and I'll bet there were consequences if it happened too often. I've heard that's one reason Neal Adams, despite his brilliance, never lasted too long on any title.

 

Maybe that's not a great analogy, I'm not familiar with employment practices at those companies now. Although I do know they hire a lot of "big name" writers for major books (Orson Scott Card, Kevin Smith, J. Michael Strazynski, for example), who may be good writers but may not be experts at the comic book medium the way Stan Lee, Roy Thomas, and (especially) Alan Moore are/were.

 

I think the industry could get out better products with these big name writers as you call them if the industry had better editorial controls in place. Interestingly, two of the experts you name, both Stan and Roy, were also solid editors (so much so, they could rein in their own scripts). I simply don't think big name writers are handled by the appropriate editors.

I think you're right about that. I doubt a comic editor is going to return one of Card's or Smith's scripts marked up in red pen. I'm sure there's as much raw storytelling talent out there now as there was then (maybe more as the industry has become less insular). As far as I've seen, it doesn't seem to translate into the quality of the books I've looked at. "Lack of editorial controls" is probably a good way of putting it.

[rob_react]

OK, but I think there's a different mentality than there was then. I feel that, 20-40 years ago, the comics industry was a lot more business-like. I'm using that word to mean 'professional', not 'corporatist'. For example, people I know who collect moderns always complain about books shipping late. That never used to happen; if the creators were late, they would at least publish a reprint, and I'll bet there were consequences if it happened too often. I've heard that's one reason Neal Adams, despite his brilliance, never lasted too long on any title.

 

Not that I'm defending late books, but one thing that you have to keep in mind is that the simplicity of styles that allowed them to be so on-time back in the day, wouldn't sell well today. Buyers now demand detailed figures, photo-realistic, solid backgrounds, fully rendered colors, etc. etc. etc. Those things are a lot more labor-intensive than the off-the-top of the head renderings that ruled the day before, well, Neal Adams changed things.

 

There's also the plain fact that people now are looking for more than ANY issue of Amazing Spider-Man or Insert Title Here. Simply sticking one of these characters on a book isn't enough to make it count, so to speak. The creators themselves are, in a lot of ways, more important than the character. I personally drop/add books left and right when creators move off/on titles. For example, I'm likely going to drop Daredevil as soon as BMB/Maleev are finished with their run unless Marvel comes through with a good team to follow them. Just "any old" Daredevil book won't cut it for me, it's got to be done by people whose work interests me.

 

I work as an inker. If I were inking Jack Kirby or John Romita, I could finish two/ three/four pages a day. If I were inking someone like Deodato, I'd be lucky to get one page a day done. There are less shortcuts now and the quality of reproduction means that we're being pushed into finer and finer linework.

[Scrooge]

I am not sure what your point here is. In a sense (and this is also reflected in your next set of comments) you seem more mad at the form of the industry than at the content. If we like it or not, we are living in a different age where: 1) comics have to be touted to be sold, far gone are the days where they would simply bought off the stands, 2) artists are receiving recognitions and no longer are we hyping the hero but the writing / pencilling team, 3) there is an organized fan following with online and offline publications dedicated to cover the industry. Wouldn't Gil Kane, Joe Kubert, John Romita Sr. among others have received wide coverage when they started considering there were all still in high-school !!! when they cracked into pro ranks in the '40s.

Right, but the form dictates the content, or at least the two go together. My impression is that the hype given to the creators and titles detracts from the quality in the long-term sense. It's short-term vs. long-term thinking. For example, creators with wildly different visions are rotated through the same titles, whereas in the SA and BA, it was more common for a team to stick with a title longer and really find their 'sea legs' so to speak. Of course, a creator can stay TOO long on one title (Hi, Chris Claremont), but that's beside the point.

 

I see your frustration here but it is sadly a reflection of the current state of the modern market and not necessarily what the publishing houses would ideally do. I think, in the SA and BA, publishers could maintain a set creative team on books for longer because most books (some one correct me here if I am wrong) were self-sufficient / self-funding (at least all the way to the late 70s) and editors could keep a stable stable (pun intended). In these days where fewer titles are breaking even and money is made on the top 50 (or even top 20) books, from a competitive point of view publishers can not afford a book to slip distribution-wise. As a sad result, editors in chief have decided that regular "shocks" to titles would keep that edge and outdo the competition (which appears in the end to be a lose-lose proposition for DC and Marvel). I feel they were grudgindly driven to it by market conditions.

 

Now as a counterpoint, if you look deeper: this impact is only visible in these top 20 / 50 books. If you go down the monthly sale list, you will find some consistent titles, enjoyed by many and titles you would probably be cited as worth checking out, have had stable creative teams: 100 bullets, Fables, Y the Last Man, JSA, Bone, ... I am in all agreement that a book with stability to me is more enjoyable. It seems again as Rob pointed out that you missed out on checking some of those.

 

You are right in pointing out that during the Silver Age artists receiving the most attention had been at it for over 15 years and all were accomplished artists. However, you are forgetting two things:

 

1) first, they were all "greats" because the fat had been cut out of the industry in the late fifties and the third tiers (and to some extent second guns) had to go back to advertising jobs or animation jobs to keep an income. The reason Stan had Jack K. , John B. , Steve D., Gene C., John R. Sr. ready to work for him is because he had the pick of the litter (and was smart to have maintained great contacts with all these guys through the tough years, handing out assignments he knew he couldn't publish within their limited rosters) and

 

2) the industry has clearly refocused on super-heroes in their current offerings and any new hot guy will be assigned to the bread and butter of the industry and touted accordingly. Recall that all cited above are associated in our collective fannish mind to super-hero books. We are NOT talking about the Marvel stallwart who slaved in the Millies and Rawhides of the world: Larry Lieber, Jack Keller and so many others ... We have a distorted history of the (Heroic) Silver Age in that sense.

OK, but I think there's a different mentality than there was then. I feel that, 20-40 years ago, the comics industry was a lot more business-like. I'm using that word to mean 'professional', not 'corporatist'. For example, people I know who collect moderns always complain about books shipping late. That never used to happen; if the creators were late, they would at least publish a reprint, and I'll bet there were consequences if it happened too often. I've heard that's one reason Neal Adams, despite his brilliance, never lasted too long on any title.

 

Well, yes lack of professionalism is plaguing some clearly high-profile projects. I don't know enough to say on which court the fault should be placed. Is it publishers announcing projects ahead of realistic deadlines for creators? Is it creators not working fast enough? Was it ever reasonable to expect SA and BA artists to crank out their work that fast in the first place whereby we know some quality had to go to meet the deadline and younger guns feel more strongly about their work's quality? I am no insider to partition the blame. Another aspect is that contracts are definitely structured differently and we should all be in favor of better protection and benefits for the creative teams than they received in the past. I have no ready answer on this point, EXCEPT (and I am beating a dead horse here), Fables, Y, Gotham Central and such titles are never late

[Silver Surfer]

How can you not buy new stuff, especially those old favorite titles that you enjoyed as a kid. Mind you I haven't picked up a FF book in a while but with a new artist I probably will start that up again. Pick up the new Captain America series and that should change your mind about modern books. Stormbreaker had some pretty fabulous artwork as well.

[rob_react]

Pick up the new Captain America series and that should change your mind about modern books.

[tth2]

Perhaps my love for Silver -Age (and fondness for Gold and Bronze) makes viewing Moderns out of focus.

 

Is there a book being printed today that has the feel of the first 300 issues of Fantastic Four? Is there a book that is being printed today that has drawings that fit into actual panels?

I stopped buying Moderns several years ago. I couldn't stand any of the mainstream titles anymore, they just didn't make sense. I even tried waiting for several months so I could read a X-Men or ASM storyline all in one go, in the hopes that they would then make more sense, but they didn't. So after a while that just left a few Vertigo titles and independents, but most of these got too esoteric and it wasn't worth the shipping to Hong Kong to get the few titles I was still interested in, so I just dropped new books altogether, and I have to admit I haven't missed them.

 

Regarding modern books that have the feel of good old traditional comics, in my opinion the pre-Unity Valiants were the last good example. Solid, entertaining but not overly complex storylines, combined with attractive but not overly flashy or ornate artwork.

[Silverspider]

I guess to further my original post, I do not read any current titles.

 

I sold my modern collection around 10 years ago when Marvel started the big re-boot. I have tried to get back into new books but none of them have really kept me excited enough to wanna plunk another $3.00 or $4.00 bucks to buy the next issue. Could it be that I'am just out of touch with new market and only want old books that have $ value and significance to me? From an investment point I just can't justify money on the new stuff. It seems I have turned into an investor of sorts for Silver and Bronze because that's were the money is. Believe me this site would not even exist if it weren't for $ value of older comics. I wonder how many of you would be interested in comics at all if not for the great investment they have been in the last 20 years or so? Take an Overstreet from 1980 and look at the guide prices. Not alot to get excited about. Compare it today and you would think you hit the lottery!

 

Anyway, I love the old books for nastalgia reasons and the $'s that go with them are a nice bonus. I recommend any modern collectors to keep readin' the new stuff because it's a great hobby to get into. And check out the old stuff, there's some real classic stories there!

[rob_react]

I guess to further my original post, I do not read any current titles.

 

I sold my modern collection around 10 years ago when Marvel started the big re-boot. I have tried to get back into new books but none of them have really kept me excited enough to wanna plunk another $3.00 or $4.00 bucks to buy the next issue. Could it be that I'am just out of touch with new market and only want old books that have $ value and significance to me? From an investment point I just can't justify money on the new stuff. It seems I have turned into an investor of sorts for Silver and Bronze because that's were the money is. Believe me this site would not even exist if it weren't for $ value of older comics. I wonder how many of you would be interested in comics at all if not for the great investment they have been in the last 20 years or so? Take an Overstreet from 1980 and look at the guide prices. Not alot to get excited about. Compare it today and you would think you hit the lottery!

 

The last thing I (or likely anyone that posted in this thread) buy new comics for is the investment. Of course, I don't buy DVDs, books, magazines, or CDs for investment either, so...

 

Anyway, I love the old books for nastalgia reasons and the $'s that go with them are a nice bonus. I recommend any modern collectors to keep readin' the new stuff because it's a great hobby to get into. And check out the old stuff, there's some real classic stories there!

 

You're preaching to the choir (this is the Silver Age forum, after all.) Save it for another section of the site where you might find someone ragging on the Silver Age (where I'll be defending Silver Age stories .)

[Silver]

As a mostly Silver and Bronze age collector myself, I was wondering if anyone on the Silver age board still buys new stuff?

 

It's funny, I was in a comic store the other day for the first time in awhile. Instead of browsing the new comics and flipping through, I was more mesmorized by the old stuff hanging on the wall!!!!

 

Ahh the good old days!!!!!!!

 

I get (in no particular order):

 

Strangers in Paradise (love that title)

Legion of Super Heroes (keeping 400 some odd issue nearly complete collection of all appearances)

Superman / Batman (great reads!)

Teen Titans

Astonishing X-Men

Y The Last Man (your missing out if your not reading this. I heard it was just optioned for a movie)

The Young Avengers (fun stuff!)

Ex Machina (very original!)

 

and occasionaly a Superman one shot or something my store owner recommends. I like to keep giving business to a LCS, I think it is good for the hobby, plus I really enjoy the books I listed. While I primarily collect silver DC, I still like the feeling of coming home with a stack of new books to read.

[Bronze_Age_Fan]

The only modern book that I currently buy is CONAN, I have very little interest in what the big two are doing these days.

 

I collect Silver,Bronze and copper.

[bigfiver69]

I haven't bought any new books in a very big way since the late 80s. Once the genre titles started dying (western, war, horror, fantasy) and the hero books all started looking the same, I couldn't be bothered.

 

I'm stuck in the past. That's partly due to nostalgia, but mostly it's because I think the books of yesteryear were just plain better. Better stories, better art. A lot of that has to do with the simplicity of the books back then. Straightforward, enjoyable fun. If you missed a few issues of a title, no big.

 

I'm lucky that I can afford a lot of what I want. I feel bad for little kids who (like my seven year old son) who will never know the joy of hopping on their Schwinn, tooling down to the corner store and picking up a couple of very different, brand new comics for little more than pocket change. He reads my low grade doubles of DC war, horror and hero books, and he loves them. He's got a genuine, natural thirst for comics (as most kids do). But new comics are just not accesible to him and his friends.

 

DC and Marvel would do well to create new, youth-oriented titles with fun stories and art to sell back into corner stores, drugstores, mom and pop shops and gas stations. Print them on cheap paper, sell them cheap, just like the old days. There is a market there.

 

New comics as they stand are just too much of a hassle. It's a shame.

 

Shep