The Whole Story

The use of story arcs in ongoing stories has gained in popularity as the comic market has evolved - but do the demands of the industry force creators into an unhappy compromise when it comes to telling their tales?
11 April 2003

The concept of story arcs, smaller stories that form part of a larger tale, has existed within narrative theory for some time. The idea has also become part of the common language of comic book theory and marketing in more recent times. This once academic term now regularly appears in discussions about comics, and it is now quite uncommon for a new series to be launched without some reference to the length of its story arcs.

It is impossible to pin-point exactly when or where the concept of story arcs entered the comics industry, but Neil Gaiman's THE SANDMAN definitely helped popularise the term. The series, with its distinct and literary approach to structure, helped generate discussion and firmly embedded the concept of story arcs into the general comics consciousness. THE SANDMAN was by no means the only series using an arc-based structure at the time, but it was certainly one of the most prominent.

There has, however, been a gradual shift over recent years in the way in which the comic industry approaches story arcs. The typical approach in the early to mid nineties was a looser, more freeform take on the idea, where arcs would often be of varying lengths. This has gradually given way to a far more structured and regimented approach where story arcs are of a fixed length, usually three, four or six issues. It's now common practice for the first story arc to set a precedent for the series and for all following arcs to be of the same or a similar length.

This change of style has become quite widespread and now seems to be on the verge of becoming the dominant mode within the industry, but I don't feel that this change has been entirely beneficial to comics. There have certainly been benefits to this change and perhaps it's an inevitable stage in the development of the medium, but there's also a downside to it that shouldn't be ignored.

In moving over to this more structured approach, a degree of creative flexibility seems to have been sacrificed. Story arcs are an artificial device, a conceit of fiction with their own inherent limitations, and having the lengths of arcs largely pre-determined narrows the creative possibilities even further. Stories are made to fit the length of the arc rather the other way around. This can often lead to stories feeling as though they have been stretched or squashed to fit the expected length.

As this more rigid application of story arcs has become more widespread, it has started to effect reader attitudes. As story arcs have become more deeply entrenched within the reader mindset, the style has begun to be seen as the 'normal' way of producing comics. That need not necessarily be a bad thing, but unfortunately it has had the effect of making life harder for series written in other styles. One of the contributing factors in the failure of DC Vertigo's OUTLAW NATION was said to be its non-arc based structure.

Why has the comics industry shifted towards this more structured approach in recent years? The answer seems not to have been because of a deliberate artistic movement, but more as a reaction to changes within the industry. The gradual recovery from the mid-nineties collapse has brought changes to both attitudes and economics within the industry. Publishers are displaying greater caution with new series, often cancelling them within two years of launching. Neatly packaged, fixed-length arcs are better suited to the current climate, where titles don't have an automatic grace period in which to experiment.

The growth of the graphic novel market in recent years also seems to have been partially driving this change. The prompt and regular release of collected editions has become ever more important to the success - and, increasingly, the survival - of any new series. It would be untrue to suggest that series written in looser, irregularly sized arcs cannot be successfully collected, but those written in fixed-length arcs are far easier to collect on a regular basis.

Perhaps this movement towards fixed-length arcs was unavoidable. The adoption of a more standardised approach towards using story arcs may well be an inevitable step in the development of comics both as a medium and an industry. The comics industry, like almost all other forms of entertainment, has developed its own standard practices and formats over time. The 22-page single issue and the 48-page special are both considered standard formats now, but this was not always the case. At some point there was tension between these and other formats for dominance. Now a similar tension has emerged between fixed-length story arcs and other storytelling formats.

Where does the emergence of this apparent new standard leave the quality of work being produced within the industry? Has creative freedom and flexibility been sidelined in the move to embrace this self-imposed restriction? The creative constraints of the fixed-length arc structure can certainly lead to stories feeling compressed or padded out to fit the arc length, and ultimately, the responsibility for that must lie with the writer of the series. If the story does not work within the chosen length, then it is the wrong story to tell. Blaming the arc length is like blaming the programme format if the script for a one-hour TV show runs short by ten minutes.

A degree of creative freedom and flexibility has indeed been sacrificed in the name of easier collected editions and increased stability, but in the end, the quality of the work is still dependent on the creative teams.

Paul Kester is a writer currently working on his first novel.

Ninth Art endorses the principle of Ideological Freeware. The author permits distribution of this article by private individuals, on condition that the author and source of the article are clearly shown, no charge is made, and the whole article is reproduced intact, including this notice.