The Crazy 90s or Are Fresh Starts Really Better for New Readers?

The year was 1993. I remember it like it was yesterday. Well, maybe not yesterday, but last week at the latest. My mother came home and handed me a copy of Adventures of Superman #500.

For the uninitiated, that’s the issue where Superman supposedly came back from the dead after his battle Doomsday and months of books about but not featuring the Man of Steel, only instead of seeing Superman back in action, we got four mysterious substitutes (Steel, Superboy/Kon-El, the Eradicator, and Cyborg Superman).

It was also my first comic book. Pretty complicated stuff for a new reader, huh? You bet. Especially since, on top of the four new S-men, the book took Superman on a spiritual journey featuring a multitude of characters I had never even heard of, such as Blaze and Kismet.

But you know what? I was instantly hooked. My whole life I had known who Superman was, just as I had known about the rest of the featured players of the DC Universe. But now I was discovering things about this world that I never knew existed, and I was there for the beginning of a brand new tale that would become one of the most iconic in the character’s history.

When all four Superman books came out at the same time following this book, each one chronicling the adventures of one of the four new heroes, I got them all and never looked back. When the ensuing Reign of the Supermen storyline crossed over with Green Lantern, leading to that book’s landmark Emerald Twilight and introduction of Kyle Rayner (see GL #46, 48-50), I got hooked on that too.

That, in my opinion, is how you draw new readers.

Take a known entity, shake things up to get attention, tie it to other characters who then have their own big events. And one more thing: make the stories awesome. Publicity stunts will catch a new reader’s eye, but quality storytelling will keep it. There’s no question that moments such as Superman’s death and return and Batman’s broken back and recovery were stunts designed to boost sales, but they worked because they were great stories about great characters.

These weren’t designed as “jumping-on points” for new readers. In fact, readers needed to be familiar with the histories of these arcs to fully appreciate them. But they were so good that they didn’t need to be fully appreciated. A new reader knows the basics of the character already. That’s why they’re buying the book in the first place. When Superman dies, or Bane cripples Batman, the casual observer knows it’s a big deal. Once they pick up the issues where these things happen, a solid story will have them wanting to know more.

This is the key difference between DC’s approach in the 90s and their current course of action. Let me ask you this: if you had a choice between reading a book featuring a character you’ve heard of that has a rich history, and a book starring a character of the same name with a similar background, but without all the history that helped make the character what they are, and the stories themselves aren’t anything to write home about, which one will you read first?

Comics today are all about reinvention, trying to find a fresh point for newbies to join the fun. Back when I started reading, comics were a moving carousel that I had to jump on, and keep up if I wanted to enjoy the ride.

Which do you prefer? Sound off in the forums!