Robert, I don't know if there's any way to reconcile the two. Star power *may* have some impact on sales (to cite Matt's example above, Jim Lee's art helped sales on Superman and Batman titles) but the perks of being a star mean that the checks and balances that help ensure professionalism are eroded if not demolished.

As for Wildsiderz, my LCS manager says he can't give the book away. Jeff's a good artist but never learned how to get pages done routinely and reliably.

The "write it for the trade" mentality plays into this. If I sit down with my 2006 trade paperback copy of SUPERSTRONG GUY #1-12, a classic story with beautiful artwork and sharp storytelling on every page, do I care that issue 5 shipped two months late when originally released in 1989?

Probably not.

But if I was a reader in 1989, I would care!

It's part of the eroding work ethic that is evident not only in comic books, but everywhere! I work part-time at a newspaper, and today the editor said he gave one of his writers an artificial deadline on purpose, even though he knew the writer would not meet it. His reasoning was the writer would be closer to completion because of the artificial deadline, and his chances of getting the material when he REALLY needs it -- later this week -- improved.

And you know what, he was right: The writer missed the deadline. I understand why the editor did it, short term, but it's like he's slitting his own throat, long term, because it teaches even LESS respect for deadlines.

Sometimes, a writer and artist need that extra time to create something REALLY special. Other times, maybe MOST times, it's just poor time management.

It's a good point, Chris. A reader ten years after the fact won't give a damn if the book's issues were scattered over three years-- they get the benefit of all the work, in their hands, right that second.

As for the writer... if this slob ever figures it out, he'll blow his BS deadlines and eventually get canned. And the editor is hurting his own cause because he isn't taking responsibility for an underperforming employee. (Much like many comic book editors who either can't or won't address underperforming creatives.)

And let's be honest, how many books in the last 15 years really needed more than a month to look incredibly special? I can't think of a single one.

Here's a related question for JB (or anyone with a knowledge of the industry's inner workings:

Back in the late 1970s, I can remember some books being on a bi-monthly schedule. Not that the books were late - they just were published once every two months. I think Daredevil may have even been one of those for a while in the pre-Miller days. So was Dr. Strange, I think.

My question is were these books on a bi-monthly schedule because of talent issues (i.e. the writer and artist couldn't do a monthly book)? Or was there another reason unrelated to talent (distribution, sales, etc.)?

Anyway, it seems to be that if you can only do six books a year, it's better to promise only six books a year, rather than promising 12 and only delivering six.

If it's a Byrne, Kane, Kirby, Buscema or Colan pickup, who needs a bloody Ferrari?

IMP.

You'd have to go a long way to find a dull page of art by Neal Adams. His stuff is somehow magically photorealistic and expressionistic, both at the same once. Consider this, one of my favorite pages of his, on which "nothing happens", yet every line jumps out at the reader:



(Note, too, that this page is drawn to what is basically a three tier grid, a la Kirby or Ditko, and has virtually no backgrounds!)

(Note, too, that this page is drawn to what is basically a three tier grid, a la Kirby or Ditko, and has virtually no backgrounds!)

This may be the best argument for storytelling over flash.  It is a dynamic piece of art, without the modern detailed backgrounds.  Personally, I think too much detail in the background can distort the story.  Think about how dynamic those old 60's covers were with little or no background.  The colors of the heroes was so vivid and distinct. 

My understanding is that bimonthly status was generally a function of sales.  In the newsstand environment, magazines stayed on the shelf until the next issue arrived, and sales calculated based on the percentage returned.  Sixty days gave a given issue a greater chase to make a profit.  Supposedly, the Simon & KIrby SANDMAN revival was viewed as hugely successful (leading to the Fleischer continuation), because its status as a one-shot created the impression that returns had been nil.  (The book stayed on the rack until store personnel noticed it was ancient, or until the distributors sent out a recall  notice.)

I used to manage a mainsream bookstore and I find this pretty believable.  Bar codes, store tracking systems and other tools now make it much easier to track real sales, though -- at least on a statistical basis.

There probably were some books that had fequencies based on talent's capablities, but I'd bet they were few and far between.