The 4-issue arc

[cjv]

So Valiant, and many/most other publishers these day, seem to be focusing on mini-arcs within the comic books. This makes it easier to compile them later for a TPB or something, plus it provides an easy way for readers to jump on at some point.

But thinking back to when I was reading comics in the '80s and '90s, while this was done on occasion, it was not common. You would have single issue stories, two or three issue stories, plot lines that spread our over many issues (with a little bit being teased each issue, or dangled every third or fourth issue). You might have a 3 to 5 issue arc once a year, often a crossover with other titles (I am thinking of something like the Mutant Massacre). Even books that had distinct arcs, like Sandman, varied how long they lasted depending on the story. And they still allowed for single issue comics and such.

How do you think it compares? I wonder if this 4-issue arc format constrains writer - no longer can you have a cool 1 issue idea; no longer can you dangle a story line, presenting little hints, over multiple months; everything has to be nice and contained within 4 issues and can't spill over.

What would you prefer?

[leonmallett]

I'd prefer a mixture, single issue and multi-issue stories, or even the approach of stories in an issue which have a beginning, middle and end, yet form part of a wider arc in terms of sub-plots.

Just as 22 pages constrains a story in a particular way, 4 issues does too in terms of beats and pacing.

I think right now the industry seems very tpb focused, which in turn seems to be the main driver for a lot of contemporary comics story-telling.

[Ramses818]

I prefer the old way. Especially since it kept you coming back to finish a sub plot. The new 4 issue arc while easy to jump on, also makes it easy to jump off.

[Brapbrap]

not really true for valiant, they've had a fair few one issue stories and the first arc of imperium spills into the second trade

[cjv]

I was just thinking about this because I was thinking about early VH!, and Claremont X-Men. With the X-Men, there would be a tease at the end, and you might not come back to it for almost a year. And there would be great one and done stories. Or stories that slowly developed over the course of a year or so.

With early VH1, aside from the origin issues like Solar and Magnus, it seemed like there were many one and two issue story books.

I don't mind a four issue arc, but I wonder how much of story writing is constrained by it. Does someone submit a story, and they are told it is too long and they have to shorten it (or that it is too short, and they have to expand it).

Not just referring the Valiant, but the general trend.

Chris

[BugsySig]

Most of Dysarts arcs have been 5 issues. At least almost every Harby arc was. We also got a few 3 issue arcs thrown in with Unity and XO that I remember, plus an occasional 1 or 2 issue prelude (Planet Death, Homecoming and Malgam in XO) and entry of one shots.

I prefer if the writers can just tell their stories--Whether that be 1 issue or 12 issues--rather than shoe horn in a four issue "arc" for the trade.

[Captain Craig]

I prefer the old way. Especially since it kept you coming back to finish a sub plot. The new 4 issue arc while easy to jump on, also makes it easy to jump off.

Ditto.
I've done lots of jumping off at Marvel & DC the past 5yrs. VEI's publishing pattern is sadly following Marvel as I see it currently.

[nycjadie]

The 1980s spawned the mini. Many of the greatest comics were minis. Legends of the Dark Knight. Wolverine. Watchmen. Punisher.

[jmatt]

I prefer if the writers can just tell their stories--Whether that be 1 issue or 12 issues--rather than shoe horn in a four issue "arc" for the trade.

QFT. I don't like the idea of stretching stories so it can fill a TPB.

The recent Unity Warmonger arc is a perfect example. It would have been a perfect two issue story but was stretched to four. They could have eliminated the historical Unity-style teams, compacted the set-up into one issue and finished strong with that last issue, which I enjoyed.

Or maybe three issues with the Viet Nam era Unity team with Bloodshot. But the Shademen, Unit-Y, 1950s and Edgar Rice Burroughs teams were unnecessary.

[Dr Noel]

I miss the ever so rare, one year long Malev War.

[erwinrafael]

I was just thinking about this because I was thinking about early VH!, and Claremont X-Men. With the X-Men, there would be a tease at the end, and you might not come back to it for almost a year. And there would be great one and done stories. Or stories that slowly developed over the course of a year or so.

With early VH1, aside from the origin issues like Solar and Magnus, it seemed like there were many one and two issue story books.

I don't mind a four issue arc, but I wonder how much of story writing is constrained by it. Does someone submit a story, and they are told it is too long and they have to shorten it (or that it is too short, and they have to expand it).

Not just referring the Valiant, but the general trend.

Chris

Talented writers are not constrained by this. They know how to creatively use it.

Case in point: FVL and Dysart.

FVL's run in Timewalker, for example, is a 12-issue story, divided into perfectly-paced 4-issue arcs, and with great single story issues within the arcs (issue #4, issue #5).

Dysart's Harbinger Year 1 is also like that. One sprawling year-long arc, with two five-issue sub-arcs, and the second sub-arc written with a done-in-one feel focusing on one character per issue.

VDitti really just writes in a very decompressed manner. It's like he has a 50-issue arc or something. LOL

[Watchtower]

100th post get hype.

As a counter-argument to the thread, I don't mind the 4-issue arc in theory. I actually kinda prefer the decompressed style compared to the compressed of the 90s, because it allows for a much more natural flow, especially when it comes to body movements and dialogue (I'll even argue that a lot of the stilted corniness of 90s dialogue was in part due to the compressed style). And collecting the arcs into single books makes it very clean for simple reading, and I'd say is better than a lot of manga volumes that just stop in the middle of an arc, assuming that no one will jump-off and anyone new will start at the beginning.

The issue with execution, however, is that the arcs should come naturally. It's when arcs are made longer or shorter for the sake of that 4-issue limit that things go wrong. I mean, there are manga out there that consist entirely of one-shots and 2-3 chapter mini-arcs. Comics shouldn't have to worry.

VDitti really just writes in a very decompressed manner. It's like he has a 50-issue arc or something.

I made a lot of comparisons to Japanese manga because it's been recorded that the decompressed style that's taken off is heavily inspired by manga-style pacing, to say nothing of the increasing influences over time. And it's in comics like XO where I feel those comparisons are the most valid.

[nycjadie]

I prefer sequential numbering. Slap the stories under a general title, like Valiant. That's what VEI did in Brazil.
.

[Shadowman99]

These mini-arcs, whilst acceptable on a surface level, annoy me on a deeper level because I feel that in an ideal fantasy world writers ought not to be constrained by whether or not segments of their overall story can fit neatly into a trade paperback or not. If writers can write a kick-*SQUEE* one issue story, let 'em do it. On the other hand, if they feel that 100 issues is what's necessary to tell their story in entirety, let 'em have it so long as sales keep up.

That's why I'm happy that XO is into relatively high numbering now - also why I'm unhappy that Bloodshot isn't when it could easily have been.

But writers and readers live in the real world, and that's not how it goes. Simply put, if this is the way VEI and other companies are managing their publishing at the moment, that's how it'll be. It's probably down to indie publishers to break free of this mold as and when they see fit - bigger companies will probably *SQUEE* a brick at the idea every time for the forseeable future.

[nycjadie]

These mini-arcs, whilst acceptable on a surface level, annoy me on a deeper level because I feel that in an ideal fantasy world writers ought not to be constrained by whether or not segments of their overall story can fit neatly into a trade paperback or not. If writers can write a kick-*SQUEE* one issue story, let 'em do it. On the other hand, if they feel that 100 issues is what's necessary to tell their story in entirety, let 'em have it so long as sales keep up.

That's why I'm happy that XO is into relatively high numbering now - also why I'm unhappy that Bloodshot isn't when it could easily have been.

But writers and readers live in the real world, and that's not how it goes. Simply put, if this is the way VEI and other companies are managing their publishing at the moment, that's how it'll be. It's probably down to indie publishers to break free of this mold as and when they see fit - bigger companies will probably *SQUEE* a brick at the idea every time for the forseeable future.

+1

[erwinrafael]

What's with the obsession with the number? Comic book old-timers are the only ones obsessed with this, and it begs to be asked why?

Is it too much to ask for writers to write stories in bite-sized arcs between 4 to 6 issues so that comic book companies can expand more their reach to bookstores rather than keeping themselves in the slowly shrinking individual comic book stores?

What's the difference between asking comic book writers to write manageable short arcs, which can be within a longer arc, and asking TV writers to write in terms of episodes and seasons?

What is more important is that we have writers who write stories with a definite direction. And that could be accomplished better if a writer thinks in arcs. We don't want this to turn out to be the mess that Chris Claremont's X-Men became in the end.

Shadowman 99 said: "...in an ideal fantasy world writers ought not to be constrained by whether or not segments of their overall story can fit neatly into a trade paperback or not. If writers can write a kick-*SQUEE* one issue story, let 'em do it. On the other hand, if they feel that 100 issues is what's necessary to tell their story in entirety, let 'em have it so long as sales keep up."

See, my issue with this is that I don't think VEI is really constraining their writers. I would go back to A&A run. There are four issue-arcs (1-4), (10-13), (14-17), (18-19 + 2 Bloodshot crossovers), a five-issue arc (5-9), single issues (A&A #0, A&A: Archer #0, 24, 25), which are within a 29-issue overall story (including the 2 Bloodshots and the 2 zeros), that is divided into two sub-arcs, one of which is 14 issues (1-13+0) and the other is 15 issues (14-25+Archer 0+2BS). If you remove 24, which I think is the only "filler" issue (the Bloodshots are more essential), you have a 28-issue long arc with 2 sub-arcs of 14 issues, with the first arc paced as 4+5+1+4 and the second arc as 4+1+4+4+1.

Ultimately, I think it just comes down to the talent of the writer, and the only writers whose stories suffer are those who do not know what they are writing about from the get go. I am still surprised that Ivar, Timewalker, to this date, still refers to story points started waaayyyy back in A&A #1. Whoever said that VEI is constraining the writers in thinking long-term?

Shadowman 99 said: "That's why I'm happy that XO is into relatively high numbering now - also why I'm unhappy that Bloodshot isn't when it could easily have been."

The Bloodshot series was derailed early, with Harbinger Wars. That is VEI's big mistake. I think they should have let Duane have a go at it for at least a year. I think Duane is the type of writer who knows what he's doing, and then this Harbinger War nonsense derailed him and he never recovered. Heck, HW derailed even the Harbinger series itself.

[nycjadie]

I was preparing a large lot of Dark Horse Star Wars books for sale. There were about 10 minis, 10 one shots, and another 60-70 issues in a long continuous run. I was trying to make heads or tails of where to start reading. I zeroed in on the run, and though to myself, "well, even if the long run isn't as good, at least I know that the narrative will be continuous." And so it is.

Late 90's X titles?

Hellboy universe?

All very difficult to manage after a certain number of minis and titles. That's why back issues on continuous titles retain value and collectibility over minis, with rare exception.

[erwinrafael]

It only gets confusing when it is a series of minis that run parallel to each other.

However, if you clearly indicate series markers like Joe Casey's Wildcats, it should not be a problem.

[agent_graves]

I'd prefer a mixture, single issue and multi-issue stories, or even the approach of stories in an issue which have a beginning, middle and end, yet form part of a wider arc in terms of sub-plots.

+1

[erwinrafael]

I'd prefer a mixture, single issue and multi-issue stories, or even the approach of stories in an issue which have a beginning, middle and end, yet form part of a wider arc in terms of sub-plots.

+1

Isn't that what the better-written VEI books are doing?

[Captain Craig]

The 1980s spawned the mini. Many of the greatest comics were minis. Legends of the Dark Knight. Wolverine. Watchmen. Punisher.

Transformers was the best 4 issue mini ever from Marvel comics!

[jmatt]

I miss the ever so rare, one year long Malev War.

The Malev War was great.

[Brother Darque]

I think the 4 issue ark is enough issues to tell a story. I'm ok with it.

[mateo107]

To be honest, I always liked comics better in the days before every story was planned to be collected later. I personally think this trade planning has made the stories less like comic books. I don't mind having definite shorter stories, but too many ongoing series these days don't even read like they're a continuous series from one arc to the next.

I love A&A/Ivar, Timewalker and Harbinger/Imperium, both of which read like a continuous story despite the series changing the name and numbering.

[erwinrafael]

Which is proof that it's not the format that affects the quality of what you are reading. It's the quality of the writers.