There's an axiom in the world of selling. Providing what people want, at a price they want to pay, isn't selling; providing people with what they don't want, and don't want to pay for, and getting them to buy it? That's selling!

Except in comics, where, despite the seemingly never-ending criticism of 'stunts', people keep on buying the books. Now this isn't, I'll grant you, universal. Comic books are cancelled all the time. Series that were successful once upon a time reach the end of their 'natural' (read: commercial) life and fade into the ether like the dew on the dawn. As with politics, there are few books that 'leave the stage' at a time or circumstance of their own choosing.

And yet the industry continues, despite lower sales both on individual books and across the industry as a whole. New books come out, attract an audience - whether because of the creators or the creations - and the cycle recommences. And, critically, the readership moves on - despite the presence of Internet message boards, where arguments can and do go on long after the initial reasons for the dispute have faded into the past. (I sometimes wonder whether, had the internet been in place fifty years ago, we'd still today be seeing criticism of the late Julie Schwartz for introducing the yellow oval to Batman's costume.)

'Despite the never-ending criticism of stunts, people keep buying the books.' With the people who run comic books that have a long history, they don't have to worry about the suspension of disbelief; the writing should take care of that. If that's not the case, then falling sales will become obvious early on. And unless there are long term reasons to keep the book in print, the book will be cancelled.

So, the publishers have a very different concern: namely, how the hell to keep people buying the books month after month. (I covered why we, the poor shlubs that purchase the books, continue to buy them every month in a previous piece for this site.)

I'm not sure who was the first editor to come up with the idea of stunts, but in some ways, they've been around for generations. Literally. At this point, it's useful to define the term that I'm casually throwing around.

Stunt: noun, "any specific single change to an ongoing comic book series undertaken in order to increase sales."

That's an important definition. I'm not talking about such things as Marvel's 'assistant editors month', where the aim was obviously novelty. I'm talking specifically about actions taken to increase sales, to increase, at the end of the day, company revenues.

Even a change of creative team can be a stunt, such as the recent 'Hush' storyline in BATMAN, with pencils by Jim Lee and written by Jeff Loeb. The storyline was promoted specifically on the names of the creators. It's generally acknowledged that there was no harm and only good in this, as the two creators are well known for their quality work. The editor certainly expected a good story, but the book was sold to the comics reading public primarily on the strength of its stunt casting.

Another stunt was the first of the variant covers. This admittedly simple idea spawned a couple of dozen imitations, including lenticular covers. Indeed, DC published and promoted a series of ROBIN with a varying numbers of covers for each issue, dependent upon the number of the issue itself. This in part led to the creation of the speculator market, an unfortunate, though inevitable, by-product of the policy. (You can read more about variant covers in Paul O'Brien's essay, The Fool Variations.)

'A stunt is any specific single change undertaken in order to increase sales.' Other stunts? Well, I would say that they're countless, but for the inconvenient fact that they're so damned egregious. Let's see, there was 'Nuff Said', 'The Death Of Superman', 'Knightfall', 'Reload', linked annuals, 'The Clone Saga'. The list goes on. And on. And on.

I can't exclude crossovers, but I come down less hard on those, simply because done right, they're not stunts. And how do I define "done right"? Simple - what's the purpose of the crossover? If the purpose is to write a great story, then that's not a stunt. OK, can we all list such crossovers?

That's ok, I'll wait.

No? Well, let me know if you think of any, eh?

What started me on this excursion into stunt-land was the announcement of the summer crossover for the Batman titles: 'War Games'. My first impressions about this project were favourable, I have to say, and that initial impression hasn't declined that much as I've thought more about it. I've always liked the idea of the mob in Gotham City. It's something that's always been a part of the undercurrent running through the Batman mythos, even going back to the original appearance of Joe Chill (who was back then the bloke who knocked off Mummy and Daddy Wayne).

But it was made explicit when Frank Miller wrote BATMAN: YEAR ONE, made more solid with Grant Morrison's 'Gothic' arc in LEGENDS OF THE DARK KNIGHT, and then cemented into the canon with Jeph Loeb's THE LONG HALLOWEEN and DARK VICTORY. I may have problems with each of those books' stories, but they did bring the mob firmly into the realm of The Batman. So I'd say that the idea has legs. Well, at least until one mobster or another breaks them, anyway.

And crossovers involve continuity, and more importantly, cross-continuity, something that isn't inherently a bad thing. If Tim Drake has quit as Robin in one Batman book, it only makes sense that we don't see him in the threads in another. The Batman and Superman 'families' of books have developed over the years an easy internal relationship to the extent that if a major event happens in one of the books in that family, the readers expect that it will be referenced in another sooner or later.

'If the purpose of the crossover is to write a great story, then that's not a stunt.' So yes, I consider 'War Games' a stunt. It's there to boost sales of the books, not to further the stories of the books involved. Like 'No Man's Land', if good stories arise from the situation in which the characters are placed, then that's all to the good. However, once again, the initial purpose was to increase sales, if necessary at the cost of good stories, not to tell good stories at the potential cost of increased sales.

Of course, stunts are not inherently bad. That definition again: any specific single change to an ongoing comic book series undertaken in order to increase sales. Without sales, you don't have a book, or at least you shortly won't. And increased sales on a book don't in themselves harm the book's artistic integrity. So it comes down to a subjective judgement call: no, not "does the change adversely affect the artistic attributes of the book?" Instead, "does the change adversely affect the readers' enjoyment of the book?"

I've said before, and I maintain, that comic books aren't just there for the readers' enjoyment. The comic book industry is just that, an industry, a collection of businesses whose primary purpose is not to produce comic books, but to make money.

So there's a trade-off. There has to be. A trade-off between the moneymaking wishes of the company and the artistic demands of the readership.

And that's the reason. That's the whole rationale for 'stunts'. The readership will forgive stunts because, at their heart, the readers understand, (whether they admit it or not) that the company is there to make money. How do we know that the readers will forgive the company for their stunts? Because the readers carry on buying the books.

The readers trust those who produce the books not to abuse their trust. It's just a damn pity that the companies who produce the books so often do.

Lee Barnett is an accountant and comic book writer. His first story for Marvel appears in X-MEN UNLIMITED, due on the shelves in August.

This article is Ideological Freeware. The author grants permission for its reproduction and redistribution 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.