Trend of writing for collected editions...

[Evil Means]

I thought about posting this in the general community, but I only read X-books, so I don't know if it's a broader issue or not.

I was wondering what people's preferences are here. I go in every week to the comic book shop to pick up physical floppies, so obviously I expect strong beginnings and strong endings/cliffhangers to each individual floppy. (I suppose, if pressed, I would expect a similar experience from a chapter in a book or a graphic novel, but I'm probably more flexible on that).

It seems more and more little attention is paid to the individual floppy having a strong start and strong finish. Again and again I'll find myself going through an issue thinking, "Oh, this is the lull in the greater 8-12 issue story the writer is telling. That's why it's boring and nothing much is happening besides brunch." If you're reading Dead Man Logan, Ed Brisson doesn't even give the reader the name of half the characters in the book until like the 4th issue. Two of the main three villains (none of them X-Men villains) are introduced, but are never actually named...by anyone...until like issue 4. That might fly in a graphic novel (barely), but in a floppy it was just bizarre to behold.

Do you think the art of writing floppies has completely gone by the wayside? I can't remember the last time I read an X-Book that was a standalone story that occurred in a single floppy that beginning, middled and ended in that single floppy.

[Snoop Dogg]

Arc structure and length depends on the story being told. Coates stories take too many issues. The first arc of the new Guardians of the Galaxy took too many issues. Rebirth Deathstroke is very good at two issue arcs. Current X-Force had a two-issue arc that was too long. Blah blah blah. The best writers know how to be flexibile with pacing depending on what they're doing, but the universal rule of thumb would be that you are producing a comic with enough story to be worth the asking price and telling that story well. THIS DOES NOT MEAN WORD COUNT = VALUE, WORDS DO NOT EQUAL STORY, TIME SPENT READING DOES NOT EQUAL STORY CONTENT, IT'S NOT QUANTIFIABLE. Anyway, this has varied between writers since like, the 90's. Writing for the trade as they call it, started before trades became as critical as they are today.

So instead of reading a comic and asking--
"How many words did this have?"
"How long did this take me to read?"
"Is this worse for being a chapter of a larger story?"

Ask--
"Was this worth my money?"
"Was this a significant installment of a longer series?"
"Did I enjoy the process of consuming the work?"
"Did I leave the stove on?"

[WebLurker]

Story should be as long or as short as it needs. Compressing or padding something rarely works well. That said, I have found writing for trades, when done correctly, allows for a more developed story and a more satisfying read.

[Evil Means]

Story should be as long or as short as it needs. Compressing or padding something rarely works well. That said, I have found writing for trades, when done correctly, allows for a more developed story and a more satisfying read.

Yeah, I enjoy the longer stories, for sure. I just feel like more effort could be put into writing for the serialized format. It should be possible to tell a story that takes 80 individual comics to tell and each of those comics have a strong start and compelling finish.

[DavidMunroe]

It's a bit of a fallacy, I think. If the reader's interest diminishes consecutively issue by issue due to a lack of engaging/substantive content then why would they even feel compelled to purchase the final product when what they were receiving whilst the story was being serialized wasn't enough to sustain their engagement? Readership plummets incrementally and the same readership probably wont be interested in purchasing the trade because they weren't all too interested in purchasing the singles. They should do away with this entirely as it seems impractical and bizarre from a marketing perspective let alone a story-telling perspective. Imagine what Claremont's X-Men would have been like if he was beholden to this "writing for trade" culture.

And it's a bit of a waste of time, too. You could condense three issue's worth of decompressed storytelling into 1 and maximize the potential of your characters and plot-points whilst conserving space for more storytelling.

[U.N. Owen]

My problem isn't writing for the trade. We've had multi-part story arcs in the past like Dark Phoenix or the various 6 issue event comics like Infinity Gauntlet. Writers like Hickman even write for the freaking omnibus with the stories he told on his Fantastic Four/Future Foundation run and I love it.

The problem I have is just the excessive decompression of the medium. Stories like Ultimate Power took far too long when it could be resolved in four to six issues rather than nine. Bendis, the man most famous for writing the trade, had runs which felt like nothing. Ironheart ran for 10 issues and I felt like it could have been 6 since it felt like nothing happened.

[Devaishwarya]

It really comes down to how good the writer is at his craft.
A comic-book writer should be able to tell compelling one-issue stories (done-in-ones) and...one-issue stories, as part of a larger arc that moves that overarching story forward.
While I definitely pick and choose what I buy/read and by whom, I do sample my friends' comics from time to time and I've come to the conclusion that most current "hot-shot" writers just don't know how to write and editors aren't doing their jobs properly...which makes for truly gawd-awful end products.

Claremont (because the is the X-forum) will always be noted for his ability to do both D-i-Os and lengthy, multi-issue arcs featuring multi-plots and sub plots.
Current X-writers have just one basic plot that apparently needs 12 issues and additional tie-ins to get the whole story (and sometimes it's not even properly concluded)...rubbish!

[shooshoomanjoe]

That's one of the reasons why I prefer to wait until the arc is over instead of waiting a month for the next installment. Jim Shooter had a policy that the writers must name the characters they are writing about. It just make sense to want to let your readers know who is who.