The psychology of comic book fans

[Pharozonk]

Ha! Morrison is what brought me BACK to buying X-men.
And then he left I went, ehhh...and stopped reading it...Whedon's and Elllis' runs the exceptions.

I'm the opposite. Morrison is the reason I stopped reading the X-Men.

[Goggindowner]

Ha! Morrison is what brought me BACK to buying X-men.
And then he left I went, ehhh...and stopped reading it...Whedon's and Elllis' runs the exceptions.

I actually flirted with stopping when the book changed so much with New X-Men, but I hung in there and ended up liking it more than anything X-Men that had been published in my life time (born 1984). I actually owe Grant Morrison a thank you for that run, because it was what started my eyes opening to the difference between a good/great book and a mediocre one. After his run, nothing matched up to the quality I had gotten used to (Astonishing aside). I think it was about a year after his run ended that I stopped reading X-Men out of habit, or anything else. I've only really dabbled with Marvel or DC books since then, and then OMD happened and it was the death nail. Not because I stopped reading in protest or was butt hurt about how things were done. I wasn't even reading Spider Man at the time. OMD made me realize that these books weren't being written to be quality entertainment. Sure, there have been and will continue to be amazing things done with these IPs from time to time, but OMD opened my eyes to the fact that the prime directive of Big Two cape comics was maintaining an IP, and keeping it accessible and consistent across as many media platforms as possible.

[Kid A]

Yeah Morrison was the last time a creator was actually running the X-Men the same way Claremont did for decades. Since then, writers are just hired to implement Marvel's plans.

[Paradox]

Tupiaz reminds me of a quote:

This creative team should focus on making good stories not thinking about who to please.

"A writer's job is not to give people what they want. A writer's job is to give people what they didn't even know they wanted." - Mark Gruenwald

[Marvel_Is]

I have read few here and there but nothing major. However that is not really a change if you have to go back that long to find it. The 70's Batman comics was going back to the original concept of Batman rather than change him.

So you would rather read a bad story because it has the character you like than a good story with a writer you like?

Yes...and no. If the character in the story is shown doing things I'm entertained by, then yes, I'd consider that (a bad story) a success. Writers mean very little to me, technically. I rank them from least offensive to most offensive.

Question: Are you the poster who went by the handle Hulk_Is prior to the reboot?


If the answer to my above question is yes, then the answer to your question is yes. I remember threads going back and forth on a fairly regular basis for a while with Hulk_Is, and he was all about the character.

I most certainly am! Someday, I believe I will try to retrieve that nom de guerre.

Has anybody here find themselves buying a comic book series out of habit?

Nah, that'd be a waste of money and space (in my case). As soon as I don't love a series, it meets the axe.

[Tupiaz]

Yes...and no. If the character in the story is shown doing things I'm entertained by, then yes, I'd consider that (a bad story) a success. Writers mean very little to me, technically. I rank them from least offensive to most offensive.



I most certainly am! Someday, I believe I will try to retrieve that nom de guerre.



Nah, that'd be a waste of money and space (in my case). As soon as I don't love a series, it meets the axe.

But how do you stop loving a series when it is all about the character?

[Marvel_Is]

But how do you stop loving a series when it is all about the character?

Mischaracterization is generally the main culprit.

[Prisoner 6655321]

I have, in the past picked up a book “out of habit” but I don't always think that's really quite the worst thing to do and I don't really follow characters or creators at this point but a little bit of both.

I keep my pull list intentionally low. There are a lot of pretty great comics out there. If time and money were no issue I would probably pick up twice as many books as I do now. The reality is, me picking up that many comics a month would only eat into my time and wallet and maybe I do have enough of both to do that but I also spend my money and time on other things other than comics. So, I keep my pull list to about 25 titles at any given time and revise the list quarterly or so in order to adjust to accommodate new titles and drop others accordingly.

The thing with buying a book “out of habit” is that it's basically a hopeful act and one that is often rewarded. If you've been buying a title for some time there's a good chance you really like it, if it suffers from a streak of issues you're not crazy about for whatever reason it's not unreasonable to think that things might change again to suit your tastes and how would you know unless you're following it? After some time you should probably reevaluate your choice if it seems like things couldn't possibly get better but there's nothing really wrong with hanging on for a bit to a title that you really liked to see if you will once more.

As for creators vs. characters I think it's best to evaluate each title as the sum of its parts. I might really dig Matt Kindt's Mind MGMT but I'm not going to pick up his Valiant stuff because I'm not in to the Valiant universe. The concept presented for Annihilator probably wouldn't seem quite so appealing if the team on it wasn't a team that I thought could take those ideas in a direction I'd like to read about.

[Goggindowner]

The thing with buying a book “out of habit” is that it's basically a hopeful act and one that is often rewarded. If you've been buying a title for some time there's a good chance you really like it, if it suffers from a streak of issues you're not crazy about for whatever reason it's not unreasonable to think that things might change again to suit your tastes and how would you know unless you're following it? After some time you should probably reevaluate your choice if it seems like things couldn't possibly get better but there's nothing really wrong with hanging on for a bit to a title that you really liked to see if you will once more.

I think buying out of habit is more characterized by going YEARS reading something that you aren't enjoying just because you did once. It's totally different to give a series the opportunity to pull itself back together after a bad couple of months, especially if the creative team hasn't changed from the one you liked.

Now if the creative team you were enjoying changed, and THAT is the reason that you're not enjoying the book, I think the leash should get shorter.

[Tupiaz]

I think buying out of habit is more characterized by going YEARS reading something that you aren't enjoying just because you did once. It's totally different to give a series the opportunity to pull itself back together after a bad couple of months, especially if the creative team hasn't changed from the one you liked.

Now if the creative team you were enjoying changed, and THAT is the reason that you're not enjoying the book, I think the leash should get shorter.

reading out of habit I would say is one of the reason that you can have a lot of medicore to bad comics going around for some time. It is also the reason why lesser known characters but good stories get cancelled because people are focusing on a character rather than the good stories. I'm not saying I not a victim of this my self. However it is a problem in the industry.

Mischaracterization is generally the main culprit.

Shouldn't you then just follow writers who don't mischaracterises characters? I'm not trying to judge the view point is just far from my own. Even though I began to follow characters and I have my favourites I don't want to read every story with the character. I pick runs that are good (or has good reviews).

[Chris Lang]

Also, suspension of disbelief. I've been annoyed (though not to the point of boycotting or even writing a letter, way too much effort) at things like OMD because I enjoyed watching Peter Parker progress as an adult and because the reasons behind it (we could have a whole new thread about the psychology of creators uncomfortable with characters having already progressed) seemed suspect.

But I'm also old enough to know two things which squash my annoyance and allow me to quickly move on when this happens to a comic I love: 1. I'm under no obligation to continue buying. That may be a hard cord to cut when I've been reading for a while, but with reboots/new issue #1s and creative team turnover I'm always provided with plenty of jumping-off points and have become used to it. And 2. There are too many good comics out there for me to ever afford, so when there's a bad one that's just an excuse to drop it and check out one of the many titles I've been wanting to but haven't had the money for. There are also so many good comics in trade form that I could drop monthlies altogether and focus on those and probably never run out of good comics.

The thing that bothers me the most is that there are some people who HATE certain stories for what they do to the characters and the concept ('One More Day' being just one example) but yet will still continue to buy the series anyway. These people may have very good reasons for hating the stories, but they'll still end up thanking the publishers by buying the issues that come afterward.

As for me, I got over the 'completionist' mindset a LONG time ago. Back at the end of the 1990s. In 1993, in Amazing Spider-Man #400, Aunt May passed away in a tear-jerking, emotional moment, as Peter Parker has to face what all of us have to face in our lives sooner or later: The fact that sooner or later, a loved one will die and there will be nothing we can do about it. Sometimes, we have to accept that it's their time.

Three and a half years later, in the 'Gathering of Five/The Final Chapter' storyline, Aunt May is returned from the dead with an explanation that would have been laughed off of Days Of Our Lives. Supposedly, Norman Osborn secretly replaced Aunt May with a genetically re-engineered actress who was so good at impersonating Aunt May that she fooled Peter Parker. And who stayed in character on her deathbed. Even by comic book standards, this is incredibly ridiculous and nonsensical.

I felt then, as I do now, that this was one of the most intelligence-insulting things I'd ever seen in comics. I was disappointed and upset with Marvel editorial, who approved this explanation and expected the readers to go 'Okay, that makes sense' and move on. But did I keep buying the Spider-books afterward?

No. I made a decision to not purchase any Spider-Man stories set after 'The Gathering of Five/The Final Chapter', because doing so would, to me, dignify that horrible story and imply that I had no problem with Aunt May's return or the explanation given for it. Instead, I decided to stick with trade paperback reprints of Spider-Man stories from before, or with Spider-Girl, and just pretend that 'The Gathering of Five/The Final Chapter' was just a badly-written fanfic (of the 'fix fic' subgenre) that I read on the Internet somewhere.

Like 'One More Day' nearly a decade later, 'The Gathering of Five/The Final Chapter' was an illusion-shattering story. It shatters the 'illusion of change' that's often brought up in discussions of superhero comics. It tells the reader, with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer, that these are NOT series where interesting things can happen to the characters, and they will stick. It reminds the reader that these characters are corporate properties, and that if the corporation running the characters thinks they can make more money by reverting them to a previous status quo, that's precisely what they'll do.

And they'll do it even if the reversion to the previous status quo -- or the way the reversion is handled -- makes no sense. The people running the show will even accept stories that are poorly written and nonsensical as long as it gets them what they want. And that, for me, ruins my ability to suspend disbelief.

So I quit the Spider-books, and, aside from Spider-Girl, Ultimate Spider-Man, and stories set in other universes or before 'The Gathering of Five/Final Chapter', I haven't bought any since. Others, however, continued to buy the books after that. And I know that there are LOTS of people who hate 'One More Day' for how forced, out of character and illogical it was, but yet will still keep buying the Spider-Man comics set after it. And my question to them is: Why?

I suppose part of it is the 'collector' mindset. But if they're buying the books hoping that 'One More Day' will be undone (and more importantly, undone in a satisfying manner that makes sense and addresses the issues raised), then they're buying the books for the wrong reasons. Continuing to buy issues of a comic book series after they've published a story you thought was incredibly awful only makes those in charge think you had no problem with it at all. You can rant and rave and complain about 'One More Day' all you want, but if you bought 'Brand New Day', 'Spider Island' or anything else set after it, the powers that be will just believe you'll keep buying their stuff no matter what. And THAT is never a good thing.

[Tupiaz]

The thing that bothers me the most is that there are some people who HATE certain stories for what they do to the characters and the concept ('One More Day' being just one example) but yet will still continue to buy the series anyway. These people may have very good reasons for hating the stories, but they'll still end up thanking the publishers by buying the issues that come afterward.

As for me, I got over the 'completionist' mindset a LONG time ago. Back at the end of the 1990s. In 1993, in Amazing Spider-Man #400, Aunt May passed away in a tear-jerking, emotional moment, as Peter Parker has to face what all of us have to face in our lives sooner or later: The fact that sooner or later, a loved one will die and there will be nothing we can do about it. Sometimes, we have to accept that it's their time.

Three and a half years later, in the 'Gathering of Five/The Final Chapter' storyline, Aunt May is returned from the dead with an explanation that would have been laughed off of Days Of Our Lives. Supposedly, Norman Osborn secretly replaced Aunt May with a genetically re-engineered actress who was so good at impersonating Aunt May that she fooled Peter Parker. And who stayed in character on her deathbed. Even by comic book standards, this is incredibly ridiculous and nonsensical.

I felt then, as I do now, that this was one of the most intelligence-insulting things I'd ever seen in comics. I was disappointed and upset with Marvel editorial, who approved this explanation and expected the readers to go 'Okay, that makes sense' and move on. But did I keep buying the Spider-books afterward?

No. I made a decision to not purchase any Spider-Man stories set after 'The Gathering of Five/The Final Chapter', because doing so would, to me, dignify that horrible story and imply that I had no problem with Aunt May's return or the explanation given for it. Instead, I decided to stick with trade paperback reprints of Spider-Man stories from before, or with Spider-Girl, and just pretend that 'The Gathering of Five/The Final Chapter' was just a badly-written fanfic (of the 'fix fic' subgenre) that I read on the Internet somewhere.

Like 'One More Day' nearly a decade later, 'The Gathering of Five/The Final Chapter' was an illusion-shattering story. It shatters the 'illusion of change' that's often brought up in discussions of superhero comics. It tells the reader, with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer, that these are NOT series where interesting things can happen to the characters, and they will stick. It reminds the reader that these characters are corporate properties, and that if the corporation running the characters thinks they can make more money by reverting them to a previous status quo, that's precisely what they'll do.

And they'll do it even if the reversion to the previous status quo -- or the way the reversion is handled -- makes no sense. The people running the show will even accept stories that are poorly written and nonsensical as long as it gets them what they want. And that, for me, ruins my ability to suspend disbelief.

So I quit the Spider-books, and, aside from Spider-Girl, Ultimate Spider-Man, and stories set in other universes or before 'The Gathering of Five/Final Chapter', I haven't bought any since. Others, however, continued to buy the books after that. And I know that there are LOTS of people who hate 'One More Day' for how forced, out of character and illogical it was -- but yet will still keep buying the Spider-Man comics set after it. And my question to them is: Why?

I suppose part of it is the 'collector' mindset. But if they're buying the books hoping that 'One More Day' will be undone (and more importantly, undone in a satisfying manner that makes sense and addresses the issues raised), then they're buying the books for the wrong reasons. Continuing to buy issues of a comic book series after they've published a story you thought was the worst thing ever only makes those in charge think you had no problem with it at all. You can rant and rave and complain about 'One More Day' all you want', but if you bought 'Brand New Day', 'Spider Island' or anything else set after it, the powers that be will just believe you'll keep buying their stuff no matter what. And THAT is never a good thing.

Yeah it was dreadful the only reason I wasn't so turned of by it was that I started reading Spider-man after the story however read it later on. That MJ and PP couldn't have a child was another prove that change won't happen. OMD was the nail in the coffin (I haven't read it and I'm not interested in it either. However Dan Slot's run seems to be quite good).

[CSTowle]

There's also the case of fans (and I count myself among them) allowing annoyance/hatred of bungled and just plain awful storylines to avoid buying books once the writer responsible has moved on and a quality writer has taken their place. I also bought Spider-Man (pretty much all of his titles, which at the time was a lot) until they brought Aunt May and Norman Osborn back. I too was moved by Aunt May's death, and took it as a slap in the face that they not only took that back but walked back one of the biggest deaths in comics at the time in Norman.

When Ultimate Spider-Man came out a friend told me that it was surprisingly good (Bendis wasn't much of a name back then outside of indie comics), and since it was set outside of the clone/Norman Osborn/dead baby/live May continuity and it was drawn by long-time Spidey artist Mark Bagley I gave it a shot. It was wonderful, and continues to be a good comic even post-Peter. I can't think of a comic line that's had a run this long that was this good (even Uncanny under Claremont had some lows). I was even dipping my toe back into the 616-Spideyverse when OMD happened.

After that I said "feh" and just put Spider-Man (that version anyway) out of my head. Then Slott came on, and I was told it was really good, and I really liked Slott's She-Hulk and GLA comics (and I'd even liked a story he wrote as a back-up feature in one of the clone-era books about the black costume and Jean Dewolff). I just couldn't do it. And now I've missed out on what I'm told is a long run of really great Spider-Man comics, because I've been burned too many times (even the "Superior" Ock Spider-Man sounds fun because it was meant to be an experiment and not the new status quo). And that's all on me, it's all about my issues and has nothing to do with Marvel or anyone who's ever written Spider-Man. They're just trying to sell comics.

[Mikekerr3]

But how do you stop loving a series when it is all about the character?

that is easy, when the Writer makes you lose interest in the character, or makes the character unrecognizable

[tombo]

To answer the OP, in my opinion, fans will always remember something that changed the world of their favourite series, and always want to discuss it. For example, I spent most of my childhood and teens waiting for the SW prequels, imagining what they would be like, building them up in my mind as this amazing second coming of great movies. And even now, almost 10 years after the last one, I still find my thoughts often going back to the 3 films and chewing over what I liked, what I didn't like, what was missing, what I wish they did. Especially when triggered by things like the Disney announcement and seeing the new Guardians film, another movie based on that 70s sci fi comic feel SW had.

I hated Identity Crisis. It put me off reading new DCU stories. It took characters I liked , spouses of the League, and instead of rising to the challenge of making them strong (like Alex Ross would) it was like , oh, no one cares about them, lets make them killers or show them raped. I thought the people who decided on that story were more like adult children than any fan turned off by it. And it was just that feel of, lets make comics serious by making them more grim.

I saw a poster on a blog recently who said he thought Batman's origin should have been updated by him having more family killed as a boy because "more violence would make it more deep and relevant".

I didn't mind OMD that much, I thought it pretty much said that from now on every story might as well be a "what if story" so I might as well just enjoy them while it lasts. The only real life reaction I saw to it was by a friend of mine, a jolly loud Spider Man fan who told me in a loud and angry voice while we were out having coffee together how cross he was that the stuff from Civil War wasn't carrying on because he liked it.