Do you think the Alan Moore stories you read would still work for you?

I believe Moore's stories would work with anyone but an inept artist, Flavio, though of course working with great artists helped. I remember reading Grant Morrison's Animal Man and really just not caring for the artist much at all - I mean, I really felt he paled in comparison to Bolland's covers - but with a little perseverance I found a great story.

It's a tricky thing to speculate on, too. While I think Stan's FF and Spider-Man would've still been fun with Sal Buscema or Don Heck drawing them, I thank the gods we got Kirby and Ditko. And sometimes it's simply telling of a writer's quality that so many great artists want to work with him.

Now I can't shake the mental image of ...Vince Colletta drawing Watchmen.

Yeah, each page would only have a seven panel grid, because two would have been erased...

Andrew W. Farago wrote: How the heck isn't BONE an entry point for new comics readers?  It might not be the entry point for new superhero comic readers, but with something like a million printed copies of the trades and individual issues out there, and with tons of those being published through the Scholastic Book Club, there are thousands of kids reading BONE who might very well go on to read other comics.

First off, I meant no disparagement toward BONE, which I think is a find piece of work.  Second, a kid picks up BONE, then is lucky to find a comic shop (let alone one their parent will more than likely have to drive them to), and I seriously doubt that any given week they'll be able to find even a tenth of the all ages material that I found when I was their age.  Finally, when those million printed copies and "tons published through the Scholastic Book Club" work out to actual readers and not some optimistic guesswork, then alert the presses.  As it is, readership of monthly comic books is down considerably from just a decade ago let alone twenty years ago.  I see no indication that BONE or WATCHMEN is an entry point that is making so much as a dent in the overall publishing of any company, not just Marvel and DC.

Andrew W. Farago wrote: Less than a tenth of what was available when we were kids?  Really?  Archie's still around, there are dozens of all-ages manga in print, dozens of readily available comic strip collections dating spanning the past 100 years, readily available reprints of classic superhero stuff, loads of kid-friendly online content, dedicated all-ages Marvel and DC lines...

Yes, really. All of the above were available when I was a kid in the 70s...and then you had all of Marvel and all of DC. There weren't "dedicated all-ages...lines"because the lines were all all-ages. When I don't feel I can give a kid a copy of X-Men, Wolverine, or Batman, then I feel we've lost a ton.  If you're content with a small line, with a small number of books pushed off to the side and barely marketed, and then a ton of reprints, fine.  Me, not even close.

QUOTE: when you branch out beyond the monthly comic format, there are plenty of ways for kids to find comics today.  Kids aren't finding our comics anymore, but it doesn't mean they aren't finding comics.

Again, show me how that translates into actual sales such that the companies are experiencing an uptick in sales based on this mythological child reading comic books. In the end, that's what I'm talking about.  Based on sales figures, I just don't see it.  Instead, I see pie-in-the-sky optimism that maybe, perhaps, somehow, possibly kids in droves are flocking to comics.  Sorry, but I just don't buy it.