Last time on “Waiting For The Trade”, Idabbled in self-indulgence about why I’m so special and awesome talked about some of the differences between a monthly comic and a trade paperback, and some of the differences I, as a reader, experience going into them. Last time focussed mostly on the artifacts themselves, whereas this time is going to be more about narrative.
THE FINAL CRISIS TRADE
Comics have a weird relationship with narrative structure. Most comics are designed and intended to act as perpetual series’, rather than being conceived in the traditional manner of having a beginning, middle and end to work through. The heroes have an origin, they fight crime – and they keep fighting crime. There’s no real ‘end point’ here. Problems keep coming up to be solved, villains keep escaping jail or returning from the grave to menace the world once more! Even the death of the hero does not draw the story to a close, since they invariably return; I think by this point the list of comic book characters who have stayed dead is shorter than the list of ones who haven’t. Essentially, as long as there’s enough interest in the story to justify the title’s existence, it’ll exist.
That sounds rather cynical, and I suppose it is; the business side of the industry means that in order to sell books, popular characters have to stick around so readers will pay to see their exploits. But that’s a little grander on the scale of what I’m here to look at today. I want to focus more on the narrative differences between a monthly issue and a trade paperback.
A trade is a collection of a story arc, usually six issues worth, from an ongoing monthly series. In other words, the story is the same. But the experience of the story is not, in my opinion. The techniques that writers use don’t necessarily work so well when put together in a trade collection, or the way they approach the story might work well in the monthly series but not in a collection. Final Crisis is probably my favourite talking point in terms of modern comic book narrative.
Like every Crisis before it, Final Crisis was intended as an epic, sprawling narrative across as many DC titles as could be managed. This included short mini-series and stand-alone issues, all giving space for Grant Morrison to do what he does best; crazy-ass, inter-connecting, high-concept sci-fi madness. Space alien gods breaking holes in the universe by dying; cosmic vamprie-gods that feed off of stories; a bullet fired backwards in time; the Ragnarok of the Superheroes; the death and rebirth of everything that exists. All great stuff but it needs space to be explored and fleshed out. When it comes to collecting such a huge narrative, hundreds of characters and complicated motivations, with plot devices that have been set out years ago, how do you adequately put it into a trade?
Someone like me looks at all those Final Crisis titles across the shelves and says ‘screw that, I’m just going to get the trade’. Then I get the trade for Final Crisis and get confused. It’s clear who I’m rooting for, but is Darkseid the big bad or is Mandrakk? First of all it seems Darkseid is all set up to be the big ultimate evil, but then Superman goes and leaves the universe to fight a bigger, ultimater evil – the Mandrakk, a vampiric monster that feeds on the story of the universe. Then we’re back to the war of the superheroes, Darkseid taking over the world and the Justice League resisting him. Also, apparently there’s a team of Japanese popstar/superheroes that don’t really seem to do anything. Then Mandrakk comes back to menace the world again, but then so does Darkseid. Superman defeats Darkseid’s shattered ghost by singing at it –
– and restores the broken world. Is that something he could always do? Did he get super-singing powers in a spin-off title I missed?
I think I’m rambling now, but the pont is this. Final Crisis The Monthly Series and Final Crisis The Collection are two different experiences because Morrison wasn’t writing a collection. He was writing the series and the collection suffered as a result.