Question re. 2000ad graphic novels

[Syne]

So anyway:

A while back I bought two 2000ad graphics novels: John Smith's Cradlegrave and Leatherjack. Both great, but one thing struck me in the editing:

Cradlegrave reads like a single piece of work - unless you were looking for the "episode breaks" every 6 pages, you wouldn't even realise they were there.

However, in Leatherjack the "recap" boxes at the start of each episode have been left in. So just after seeing Leatherjack do x-y-z on one page, there'll be a caption on the next page saying "Leatherjack just did x-y-z." Jarring, and I imagine it must seem pretty ridiculous to someone reading it for the first time.

Is it common practice to leave such text in graphic novel versions of 2000ad stories, despite the fact that other episodic markers - titles, "next prog" boxes, etc - have been removed? I'm hoping it isn't, as I can't see any justification for doing so.

[I, Cosh]

I'm not totally sure, but I know the way episode breaks are handled is something which has changed over the years the Rebellion GN line has been running but I don't think they tend to alter the story on the page. In the specific examples you give, I'd imagine that both stories were reprinted as published and the difference is that Cradlegrave wasn't originally written with weekly recap panels.

For my part, I find the removal of the obvious signifiers of weekly episode breaks (logos, next Prog captions) mildly annoying as it's attempting to present the strip as something it wasn't and, as you observe, will often make the flow of a story seem rather odd. Plus I spend half my time trying to identify where they were anyway.

[Syne]

For my part, I find the removal of the obvious signifiers of weekly episode breaks (logos, next Prog captions) mildly annoying as it's attempting to present the strip as something it wasn't and, as you observe, will often make the flow of a story seem rather odd. Plus I spend half my time trying to identify where they were anyway.

I'm okay with both approaches - either remove all signs of the episode breaks or leave in everything, including logos and next-prog boxes. Stories with more cliff-hanger endings would probably benefit from the latter, while I think others - like Cradlegrave - suit being read seamlessly (when I initially read Cradlegrave the first break jumped out, but the rest of the transitions were so smooth I quickly forgot to look for them).

Editing out the logos/next-progs but leaving in the recaps just seems pointless though. 

[IndigoPrime]

The editing of trades in this regard hasn't been consistent. I imagine for the most part such captions should be removed, but some sneak through.

[TordelBack]

I'm afraid that for me it comes down to that most slippery of concepts, the author's intent. 

Where a strip has been written to work as weekly episodes or 'chapters' (e.g. Zenith, chance'd be a fine thing) it is essential for my enjoyment that the weekly 'dress' is left in.  You're missing a huge part of the author's skill in constructing workable shorts*, while left wondering at strange leftovers of pacing and structure (unnecessary scene-setting every 5 or 6 pages, repeated panels and dialogue etc.), and in my case constantly trying to work out where the episode breaks were, to the extent of keeping a running count of pages since the last one was detected.  Aaaaarghhh.  Distracting.  Horned God is a particular offender here - sometimes it flows perfectly, other times there are bizarre Republic Serial roll-backs between pages, and now my watch begins...

Writers frequently use the weekly episode to create cliffhangers and story beats.  An example of this would be Total War, a story whose collection has had the breaks removed, and as such now has very little sense of time passing, which undermines the whole race-against-time aspect of the story.

Pretending that a story was written as some 100-page GN invites quality comparison with something actually written for that format, which can make the writing look less that it is.

Of course some cleverclogs writers can give you both, and deliver satisfying episodes that run seamlessly when collected.  In those cases, where the writers have explicitly followed that brief and 'written for the trade', then of course the story should be presented that way.

The current Casefiles practice of omitting any indication of where one story begins and another ends (due to the absence of on-page titles and captions in that era) is also infuriating.  There's a case where I feel episode information should be actively added.

Anyway, let's face it, this as all pandering to the Americans and their 22 page bloaters.   

*Not a pitch for Zaucer of Zilk 2.

[Colin YNWA]

The editing of trades in this regard hasn't been consistent. I imagine for the most part such captions should be removed, but some sneak through.

Sometimes even within the same volume. I personally think it depends on the series, some are served by removing the evidence that it was originally serialised. Some are not, and I suspect that this is most often the case, after all the writing can be made to look very clunky if the breaks are not acknowledged.

What really bugged me was the way it was handled in 'Flesh' (there may be other examples but I'm not a great trades buyer). I assume this was down to the away the pages were sourced, some from annuals, some from the Progs, some from elsewhere (I guess) but some parts had them, some didn't. I figure if you're going to do it be consistent one way or another. I'd guess again (so much guess work in one post!) that this is down to the economics of the trade and whether a proper clean up is financially viable. Its just a shame when its decided not too. 

[The Bissler]

I personally find the little blurbs that bring the reader up to speed a bit infuriating (see any early Dredd epic where you get told the basic plot at the start of each segment) but I totally agree with Tordelback that I really dislike the way the latest stories are dealt with in the most recent case files.  There have been a few occasions where I've felt myself wondering if I am still reading the same story or if it is something new.

The thing I find most infuriating though is the lack of the credits badge that details who wrote, drew and lettered the piece.  For good or for bad, this is information that I'm always interested in whether it be because I'm blown away by the art or have that "oh dear" feeling.  I'm sure all who worked on the stories would like it more clearly flagged up that this is their work!

[Mark Taylor]

I totally agree with Tordelback that I really dislike the way the latest stories are dealt with in the most recent case files.  There have been a few occasions where I've felt myself wondering if I am still reading the same story or if it is something new.

I'll third this. I find myself reading these with Barney open on my laptop within reach, just so I can identify the story titles.

[SmallBlueThing]

I'll fourth this. Strikes me that after all the early work done by kev o'neill and chums to get recognition for those responsible for strips in the face of abject hostility from ipc and other comic companies, that rebellion's policy of not adding little boxes to say who did what is a massive step back to the dark ages. Okay, so we have the profiles at the back, but when it's just unknown names in the dark days of the meg's murky painted periods, who knows who did what! I seem to remember saying it was a bad idea when the meg dropped the in-page credits in favour of an intro page, but was shouted down at the time. It now renders the casefiles difficult to read to say the least.

SBT

[IndigoPrime]

I suspect with the Restricted Files, the option was a fourth book that tied everything up and didn't have title pages or a fourth book that didn't tie everything up, but without much chance of a fifth. On the Case Files, it's a pity there's no obvious solution there, but again you'd end up with a ton of blank pages throughout, which I'm sure plenty of people would be irked by.

[SmallBlueThing]

I suspect most people would be happy with a small box placed over the art on the first page of a story, with the title and credits. After all, we'd be missing a couple of square inches of brown sludge in most cases.

SBT

[I, Cosh]

I'll fourth this... Okay, so we have the profiles at the back, but when it's just unknown names in the dark days of the meg's murky painted periods, who knows who did what! I seem to remember saying it was a bad idea when the meg dropped the in-page credits in favour of an intro page, but was shouted down at the time. It now renders the casefiles difficult to read to say the least.

Completely agree with this about stories merging into one and not knowing who did what. Fair enough, drop the title pages for space, but to not include any credits or titles for these stories is pretty annoying. Particularly as they do include a blank page to separate the Meg strips from the Prog ones. Surely including the credits for those Meg stories there, in the same way they do for the Restricted Files or the last Anderson or Invasion or any number of others would seem like the obvious thing to do.