Marvel sales - December 2005

[Paul O'Brien]

DECEMBER 2005
=============

You'd think the run-up to Christmas would be quiet, but not for Marvel.
December was downright hectic by their standards.

Two new ongoing titles make their chart debut - X-FACTOR, a month later
than originally scheduled, and SPIDER-MAN LOVES MARY JANE. The two big
crossovers, "Decimation" and "The Other", continue to sprawl over the
X-Men and Spider-Man titles. SPIDER-MAN & THE BLACK CAT: THE EVIL THAT
MEN DO finally returns to the charts after a gap of several years.
There's another wave of WHAT IF? one-shots. Plus, three Christmas
specials, the first MARVEL SPOTLIGHT creator profile book, and a whole
load of new miniseries, including IRON MAN: INEVITABLE, MARVEL ZOMBIES,
SON OF M, SPIDER-WOMAN: ORIGIN and ULTIMATE WOLVERINE VS HULK.

DC take the top two slots on the chart, not to mention half the top ten,
but overall Marvel still win. They beat DC in dollar share by 37.22% to
32.04%, and they won in unit share by a comfortable 44.84% to 34.24%.
That's a margin of over 10%, which is pretty impressive considering DC's
in the middle of their INFINITE CRISIS megacrossover at the moment.

As always, thanks to Milton Griepp and ICV2 for permission to use their
figures for these calculations.

INFINITE CRISIS #3 and ALL-STAR BATMAN AND ROBIN THE BOY WONDER #3 take
the top two slots for DC, which leaves Marvel to start off their
countdown at the number 3 position.

3. NEW AVENGERS
Dec 01 Avengers #49 - 57,715
Dec 02 Avengers #61 - 55,506
Dec 03 Avengers #75 - 57,814
======
Dec 05 New Avengers #1 - 280,286 (+176.3%)
Jan 05 New Avengers #2 - 155,742 ( -44.3%)
Feb 05 New Avengers #3 - 148,973 ( -4.3%)
Mar 05 New Avengers #4 - 158,303 ( +6.3%)
Apr 05 New Avengers #5 - 168,556 ( +6.5%)
May 05 n/a
Jun 05 New Avengers #6 - 164,592 ( -2.4%)
Jul 05 New Avengers #7 - 158,693 ( -3.6%)
Aug 05 New Avengers #8 - 156,037 ( -1.7%)
Aug 05 New Avengers #9 - 147,501 ( -5.5%)
Sep 05 New Avengers #10 - 143,014 ( -3.0%)
Sep 05 New Avengers #11 - 134,125 ( -6.2%)
Oct 05 New Avengers #12 - 130,110 ( -3.0%)
Nov 05 New Avengers #13 - 126,148 ( -3.0%)
Dec 05 New Avengers #14 - 124,300 ( -1.5%)
6 mnth ( -24.5%)
1 year ( -55.7%)
2 year (+115.0%)

Commemorating the first anniversary of the new title, and it's still
light years ahead of the book's previous incarnation. True, it's down
by over 55% from issue #1, but that's only to be expected - not only
were the early issues heavily hyped, but they were also artificially
inflated by variant covers. The last few issues, after that programme
stopped, have fallen back to more realistic levels that are still
undeniably impressive.

Issue #14 is the first half of a Spider-Woman two-parter. Her origin
miniseries also starts this month, and we'll come to that later on.

6. ULTIMATE WOLVERINE VS HULK
Dec 05 Ultimate Wolverine vs Hulk #1 (of 6) - 100,947

Marvel's highest new entry for the month, beating all the regular
Ultimate titles by a comfortable margin. This book was promoted heavily
around the involvement of writer Damon Lindelof, the co-creator of LOST,
and it's certainly delivered impressive numbers for its debut issue.
We've had other Wolverine/Hulk miniseries in recent years which were
nothing more than mid-table performers. Of course, quite aside from the
involvement of a big name writer, this book also had the benefit of
massive amounts of promotion. Decide for yourself how the credit falls
to be apportioned.

7. ULTIMATES
Dec 02 Ultimates #9 - 101,811
Dec 03 Ultimates #12 - 104,572
======
Dec 04 Ultimates 2 #1 - 146,271 (+42.0%)
Jan 05 Ultimates 2 #2 - 114,963 (-21.4%)
Feb 05 Ultimates 2 #3 - 108,378 ( -5.7%)
Mar 05 Ultimates 2 #4 - 105,255 ( -2.9%)
Apr 05 Ultimates 2 #5 - 104,971 ( -0.3%)
May 05 Ultimates 2 #6 - 102,026 ( -2.8%)
Jun 05 n/a
Jul 05 Ultimates 2 #7 - 99,134 ( -2.8%)
Aug 05 n/a
Sep 05 Ultimates 2 #8 - 95,980 ( -3.2%)
Oct 05 n/a
Nov 05 n/a
Dec 05 Ultimates 2 #9 - 94,493 ( -1.5%)
6 mnth ( -4.7%)
1 year (-35.4%)
2 year ( -9.6%)

Say, didn't they delay the start of ULTIMATES 2 so that they could
guarantee it would come out monthly? No? Because this issue should
have been out in August. Anyway, although sales are a little lower this
time around than they were with the original series, ULTIMATES is still
holding up very nicely indeed. And, of course, there's a high profile
change of creative team to follow.

9. UNCANNY X-MEN
Dec 01 Uncanny X-Men #401 - 105,646
Dec 02 Uncanny X-Men #416 - 88,276
Dec 03 Uncanny X-Men #434 - 90,318
======
Dec 04 Uncanny X-Men #453 - 89,952 ( -2.3%)
Jan 05 Uncanny X-Men #454 - 87,411 ( -2.8%)
Feb 05 Uncanny X-Men #455 - 88,920 ( +1.7%)
Feb 05 Uncanny X-Men #456 - 86,767 ( -2.4%)
Mar 05 Uncanny X-Men #457 - 86,365 ( -0.5%)
Apr 05 Uncanny X-Men #458 - 85,299 ( -1.2%)
May 05 Uncanny X-Men #459 - 83,547 ( -2.1%)
Jun 05 Uncanny X-Men #460 - 82,457 ( -1.3%)
Jun 05 Uncanny X-Men #461 - 91,221 (+10.6%)
Jul 05 Uncanny X-Men #462 - 91,125 ( -0.1%)
Aug 05 Uncanny X-Men #463 - 87,610 ( -3.9%)
Sep 05 Uncanny X-Men #464 - 85,885 ( -2.0%)
Oct 05 Uncanny X-Men #465 - 84,271 ( -1.9%)
Nov 05 Uncanny X-Men #466 - 82,825 ( -1.7%)
Dec 05 Uncanny X-Men #467 - 81,282 ( -1.9%)
6 mnth (-10.9%)
1 year ( -9.6%)
2 year (-10.0%)

The highest placing X-Men title. This was billed as a Decimation
tie-in, although the connection is tenuous in the extreme. Regardless,
it doesn't seem to have made any difference - UNCANNY continues on its
normal course, drifting very gently downwards. As we'll see, there's no
clear evidence of "Decimation" making a big difference on any book.

10. AMAZING SPIDER-MAN
Dec 01 Amazing Spider-Man #38 - 88,666
Dec 02 Amazing Spider-Man #48 - 93,867
Dec 03 Amazing Spider-Man #502 - 90,484
======
Dec 04 Amazing Spider-Man #515 - 83,637 ( -4.0%)
Jan 05 Amazing Spider-Man #516 - 79,842 ( -4.5%)
Feb 05 Amazing Spider-Man #517 - 78,584 ( -1.6%)
Mar 05 Amazing Spider-Man #518 - 77,025 ( -2.0%)
Apr 05 Amazing Spider-Man #519 - 79,668 ( +3.4%)
May 05 Amazing Spider-Man #520 - 76,143 ( -4.4%)
Jun 05 Amazing Spider-Man #521 - 74,117 ( -2.7%)
Jul 05 Amazing Spider-Man #522 - 73,130 ( -1.3%)
Aug 05 Amazing Spider-Man #523 - 72,046 ( -1.5%)
Sep 05 Amazing Spider-Man #524 - 71,065 ( -1.4%)
Oct 05 Amazing Spider-Man #525 - 91,707 (+29.0%)
Nov 05 Amazing Spider-Man #526 - 81,348 (-11.3%)
Dec 05 Amazing Spider-Man #527 - 79,261 ( -2.6%)
6 mnth ( +6.9%)
1 year ( -5.2%)
2 year (-12.4%)

The highest Spider-Man title, and part of the "Other" crossover. Once
again, the ordering is a little erratic on this storyline. The story is
running through AMAZING SPIDER-MAN, FRIENDLY NEIGHBORHOOD SPIDER-MAN and
MARVEL KNIGHTS SPIDER-MAN. They're effectively just one series for the
duration of the storyline. Yet, once again, AMAZING comfortably
outsells the other two books. FRIENDLY NEIGHBORHOOD SPIDER-MAN is 7,000
behind, and MARVEL KNIGHTS SPIDER-MAN is over 10,000 behind.

Which is... odd. It means that a decent-sized chunk of AMAZING's
readers are sticking with this book and ignoring the rest of the
crossover. This isn't even creator loyalty, since the creators are
swapping books. They bought AMAZING in the last two months, even though
it wasn't by regular writer J M Straczynski. And they didn't buy the
other two books this month, even though Straczynski was writing them. I
honestly don't fathom the logic of that. Who are these people who are
so completist that they buy one third of the crossover simply because
it's appearing in AMAZING SPIDER-MAN, yet aren't completist enough to
buy the other two Spider-Man comics for the rest of the plot?

There's a few re-orders topping up earlier issues. Issue #526 has
re-orders of 1,674 and scrapes into the chart at number 300. Issue #525
picks up another 2,210 re-orders and charts at number 281. Those
numbers are incorporated into the figures above. There's no separate
listing for a variant cover (unlike the other two Spider-Man titles), so
presumably AMAZING's variant didn't ship in time for the December
charts.

11. SECRET WAR
Feb 04 Secret War #1 (of 5) - 154,777
Mar 04 n/a
Apr 04 n/a
May 04 Secret War #2 (of 5) - 132,841 (-14.2%)
Jun 04 n/a
Jul 04 n/a
Aug 04 n/a
Sep 04 n/a
Oct 04 Secret War #3 (of 5) - 109,745 (-17.4%)
Nov 04 n/a
Dec 04 n/a
Jan 05 n/a
Feb 05 n/a
Mar 05 Secret War #4 (of 5) - 94,893 (-13.5%)
Apr 05 n/a
May 05 n/a
Jun 05 n/a
Jul 05 n/a
Aug 05 n/a
Sep 05 n/a
Oct 05 n/a
Nov 05 n/a
Dec 05 Secret War #5 (of 5) - 79,090 (-16.7%)

Finished at last! This was supposed to be a quarterly title, so issue
#5 should have been out back in February 2005. I've observed in the
past that late running doesn't generally seem to hurt the sales of
popular titles, but obviously this one's taken a bit of a hammering.
Then again, given the generally lukewarm reception to the book, the
drops might not be solely connected with the delays. Of course, in the
wider scheme of things, any miniseries that finishes off with 79,090
sales is still doing something right.

12,16. X-MEN
Dec 01 New X-Men #121 - 112,227
Dec 02 New X-Men #135 - 96,154
Dec 03 New X-Men #150 - 110,591
======
Dec 04 X-Men #165 - 86,633 ( -2.2%)
Jan 05 X-Men #166 - 85,934 ( -0.8%)
Feb 05 X-Men #167 - 84,155 ( -2.1%)
Mar 05 X-Men #168 - 83,979 ( -0.2%)
Apr 05 X-Men #169 - 82,793 ( -1.4%)
May 05 X-Men #170 - 81,048 ( -2.1%)
Jun 05 X-Men #171 - 80,307 ( -0.9%)
Jun 05 X-Men #172 - 78,889 ( -1.8%)
Jul 05 X-Men #173 - 77,154 ( -2.2%)
Aug 05 X-Men #174 - 76,342 ( -1.1%)
Sep 05 X-Men #175 - 76,555 ( +0.3%)
Oct 05 X-Men #176 - 74,635 ( -2.5%)
Nov 05 X-Men #177 - 78,405 ( +5.1%)
Nov 05 X-Men #178 - 76,195 ( -2.8%)
Dec 05 X-Men #179 - 77,189 ( +1.3%)
Dec 05 X-Men #180 - 74,386 ( -3.6%)
6 mnth ( -5.7%)
1 year (-14.1%)
2 year (-32.7%)

Two issues this month. X-MEN #179 is a Decimation tie-in, and X-MEN
#180 isn't, which presumably accounts for the marginal bump. Overall,
the book is continuing to hover around the mid-70K range, where it's
been fluctuating for a good few months now.

14. X-MEN: DEADLY GENESIS
Nov 05 Deadly Genesis #1 (of 6) - 110,233
Dec 05 Deadly Genesis #2 (of 6) - 75,598 (-31.4%)

Yikes. That's a big drop.

Actually, it's not quite as bad as it looks, depending on your point of
view. Thanks to a variant cover, issue #1 picked up 12,314 re-orders
this month, charting at number 150. That pushes its sales way over the
100K mark, leaving it with a scary-looking second issue drop.

Then again, even without taking the variant cover into account, the
second issue drop would have been 22.8%, which still isn't exactly
great. Marvel will be hoping for this to level out very quickly, given
that it's been pushed as a major X-Men title.

15,17. ULTIMATE SPIDER-MAN
Dec 01 Ultimate Spider-Man #16 - 80,875
Dec 02 Ultimate Spider-Man #33 - 99,404
Dec 03 Ultimate Spider-Man #50 - 109,819
======
Dec 04 Ultimate Spider-Man #70 - 88,960 ( -1.2%)
Jan 05 Ultimate Spider-Man #71 - 83,987 ( -5.6%)
Feb 05 Ultimate Spider-Man #72 - 86,685 ( +3.2%)
Mar 05 Ultimate Spider-Man #73 - 83,943 ( -3.2%)
Mar 05 Ultimate Spider-Man #74 - 83,817 ( -0.2%)
Apr 05 Ultimate Spider-Man #75 - 83,940 ( +0.1%)
Apr 05 Ultimate Spider-Man #76 - 82,244 ( -2.0%)
May 05 Ultimate Spider-Man #77 - 81,034 ( -1.5%)
Jun 05 Ultimate Spider-Man #78 - 79,420 ( -2.0%)
Jul 05 Ultimate Spider-Man #79 - 78,404 ( -1.3%)
Jul 05 Ultimate Spider-Man #80 - 76,906 ( -1.9%)
Aug 05 Ultimate Spider-Man #81 - 75,572 ( -1.7%)
Sep 05 Ultimate Spider-Man #82 - 75,756 ( +0.2%)
Sep 05 Ultimate Spider-Man #83 - 75,539 ( -0.3%)
Oct 05 Ultimate Spider-Man #84 - 74,670 ( -1.2%)
Nov 05 Ultimate Spider-Man #85 - 74,264 ( -0.5%)
Nov 05 Ultimate Spider-Man #86 - 76,864 ( +3.5%)
Dec 05 Ultimate Spider-Man #87 - 74,537 ( -3.0%)
Dec 05 Ultimate Spider-Man #88 - 72,984 ( -2.1%)
6 mnth ( -8.1%)
1 year (-18.0%)
2 year (-33.5%)

Returning to normal levels. Presumably the jump for issue #86 was to do
with the Ultimate Vision back-up strip, but there's also one in issues
#87 and #88, so it can't have made an enormous difference in the long
run.

18. FRIENDLY NEIGHBORHOOD SPIDER-MAN
Oct 05 Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man #1 - 100,430
Nov 05 Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man #2 - 82,988 (-17.4%)
Dec 05 Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man #3 - 72,314 (-12.9%)

More of "The Other", and since this isn't even the regular creative
team, it's a bit pointless trying to read much into these figures. Issue
#2 picks up 8,222 orders for its variant cover, and charts at number
189.

19. WOLVERINE
Dec 01 Wolverine #171 - 72,909
Dec 02 Wolverine #184 - 64,620
Dec 03 Wolverine #9 - 74,659
======
Dec 04 Wolverine #23 - 82,525 ( +0.8%)
Jan 04 Wolverine #24 - 81,618 ( -1.1%)
Feb 05 Wolverine #25 - 83,180 ( +1.9%)
Mar 05 Wolverine #26 - 108,677 (+30.7%)
Apr 05 Wolverine #27 - 101,228 ( -6.9%)
May 05 Wolverine #28 - 80,961 (-20.0%)
Jun 05 Wolverine #29 - 79,951 ( -1.2%)
Jul 05 Wolverine #30 - 76,651 ( -4.1%)
Aug 05 Wolverine #31 - 75,618 ( -1.3%)
Sep 05 Wolverine #32 - 89,026 (+17.7%)
Sep 05 Wolverine #33 - 78,508 (-11.8%)
Oct 05 Wolverine #34 - 75,664 ( -3.6%)
Oct 05 Wolverine #35 - 73,684 ( -2.6%)
Nov 05 Wolverine #36 - 94,355 (+28.1%)
Dec 05 Wolverine #37 - 70,716 (-25.1%)
6 mnth (-11.6%)
1 year (-14.3%)
2 year ( -5.3%)

Another Decimation tie-in, and part of "Origins and Endings." Marvel
seem to have had high hopes for this storyline, but in reality it's just
doing standard WOLVERINE numbers when seen in the context of the last
few years. One might question whether these figures really support the
decision to spin Daniel Way's storyline into a separate ongoing series.

Issue #36 picks up another 8,386 copies thanks to a variant cover.

20. ULTIMATE FANTASTIC FOUR
Dec 03 Ultimate Fantastic Four #1 - 173,441
======
Dec 04 Ultimate Fantastic Four #14 - 78,717 (-28.4%)
Jan 05 Ultimate Fantastic Four #15 - 74,501 ( -5.4%)
Feb 05 n/a
Mar 05 Ultimate Fantastic Four #16 - 73,987 ( -0.7%)
Apr 05 Ultimate Fantastic Four #17 - 72,207 ( -2.4%)
May 05 Ultimate Fantastic Four #18 - 71,478 ( -1.0%)
Jun 05 Ultimate Fantastic Four #19 - 70,300 ( -1.6%)
Jun 05 Ultimate Fantastic Four #20 - 69,097 ( -1.7%)
Jul 05 Ultimate Fantastic Four #21 - 91,321 (+32.2%)
Aug 05 Ultimate Fantastic Four #22 - 71,767 (-21.4%)
Sep 05 Ultimate Fantastic Four #23 - 71,494 ( -0.4%)
Oct 05 Ultimate Fantastic Four #24 - 70,549 ( -1.3%)
Nov 05 Ultimate Fantastic Four #25 - 70,032 ( -0.7%)
Dec 05 Ultimate Fantastic Four #26 - 68,323 ( -2.4%)
6 mnth ( -2.8%)
1 year (-13.2%)
2 year (-60.6%)

Business as usual. The title celebrates its second anniversary.

21. MARVEL KNIGHTS SPIDER-MAN
Dec 04 Marvel Knights Spider-Man #9 - 64,461 ( -5.6%)
Jan 05 Marvel Knights Spider-Man #10 - 61,831 ( -4.1%)
Feb 05 Marvel Knights Spider-Man #11 - 60,460 ( -2.2%)
Mar 05 Marvel Knights Spider-Man #12 - 59,983 ( -0.8%)
Apr 05 Marvel Knights Spider-Man #13 - 60,542 ( +0.9%)
May 05 Marvel Knights Spider-Man #14 - 57,270 ( -5.4%)
Jun 05 Marvel Knights Spider-Man #15 - 54,102 ( -5.5%)
Jul 05 Marvel Knights Spider-Man #16 - 50,876 ( -6.0%)
Aug 05 Marvel Knights Spider-Man #17 - 48,555 ( -4.6%)
Sep 05 Marvel Knights Spider-Man #18 - 47,654 ( -1.9%)
Oct 05 Marvel Knights Spider-Man #19 - 75,461 (+58.4%)
Nov 05 Marvel Knights Spider-Man #20 - 71,940 ( -4.7%)
Dec 05 Marvel Knights Spider-Man #21 - 68,323 ( -5.0%)
6 mnth (+26.3%)
1 year ( +6.0%)

Another "Other" crossover, and while it doesn't get the book up to the
levels of AMAZING, it's undeniably boosting sales. Issue #20's variant
cover picks up 7,193 copies to chart at number 196.

24. SPIDER-WOMAN: ORIGIN
Dec 05 Origin #1 (of 5) - 63,953

A surprisingly high debut considering that Spider-Woman is hardly an
A-list character, and that this miniseries is simply a retelling of her
established origin story. Exposure through NEW AVENGERS has obviously
helped her a lot, and this bodes well for her upcoming solo series.

26. ULTIMATE IRON MAN
Mar 05 Ultimate Iron Man #1 (of 5) - 150,869
Apr 05 n/a
May 05 Ultimate Iron Man #2 (of 5) - 90,197 (-40.2%)
Jun 05 n/a
Jul 05 n/a
Aug 05 Ultimate Iron Man #3 (of 5) - 77,378 (-14.2%)
Sep 05 Ultimate Iron Man #4 (of 5) - 71,197 ( -8.0%)
Oct 05 n/a
Nov 05 n/a
Dec 05 Ultimate Iron Man #5 (of 5) - 63,252 (-11.2%)
6 mnth (-18.3%)

The stop-start schedule of ULTIMATE IRON MAN finally stumbles to a halt.
The plan is to extend the story into future miniseries, but you have to
question the wisdom of that. Issue #1 did excellent numbers, and
frankly, readers have been leaving the title in droves. This is going
to have to sell in big numbers to the Orson Scott Card fans in trade
paperback format.

28. ULTIMATE X-MEN/FANTASTIC FOUR
Dec 05 Ultimate X-Men/Fantastic Four - 62,905

The first half of a two-part story. For reasons best known to Marvel,
the second half is not ULTIMATE X-MEN/FANTASTIC FOUR #2, but a
completely separate one-shot called ULTIMATE FANTASTIC FOUR/X-MEN. Quite
what that's supposed to achieve, I have no idea.

ULTIMATE X-MEN itself skipped December because it's between creative
teams, and this is essentially a fill-in story. Given that it's a
perfectly good story, you have to wonder why they didn't just ship it as
ULTIMATE X-MEN #66 and guarantee themselves another 10,000 sales.

29. SON OF M
Dec 05 Son of M #1 (of 6) - 62,254

Another Decimation miniseries, this time starring Quicksilver. When you
consider that it's a book about a depowered character, and that
Quicksilver has never sold particularly well as a solo character, it's a
very good debut.

30. GHOST RIDER
Sep 05 Ghost Rider #1 (of 6) - 119,575
Oct 05 Ghost Rider #2 (of 6) - 71,473 (-40.2%)
Nov 05 Ghost Rider #3 (of 6) - 62,914 (-12.0%)
Dec 05 Ghost Rider #4 (of 6) - 59,678 ( -5.1%)

Levelling out, although perhaps rather lower than Marvel might have
hoped after the first issue.

31,33. SPIDER-MAN/BLACK CAT: EVIL THAT MEN DO
Jun 02 Spider-Man/Black Cat #1 (of 4) - 118,204
Jul 02 Spider-Man/Black Cat #2 (of 4) - 101,607 (-14.0%)
Aug 02 Spider-Man/Black Cat #3 (of 4) - 99,110 ( -2.5%)
Sep 02 Spider-Man/Black Cat #4 (of 4) - 94,749 ( -4.4%)
Oct 02 Spider-Man/Black Cat #5 (of 5) - 88,956 ( -6.1%)
======
Dec 05 Spider-Man/Black Cat #4 (of 6) - 57,089 (-35.8%)
Dec 05 Spider-Man/Black Cat #5 (of 6) - 53,849 ( -5.7%)

Ah, this. Yes, after a mere three years, Kevin Smith has finally found
time to complete a professional commitment he gave in 2002.

Readers may wonder what's going on with some of the earlier numbers, and
how issues #4 and #5 have managed to chart twice. Well, back when this
miniseries started, the charts worked on a different basis. They showed
the initial orders for a comic, not the number that shipped. This means
that comics appeared on the charts for the month in which they'd been
solicited, whether or not they actually came out. That's why issues #1
to #3 are listed as if they'd come out on time, and issues #4 and #5
managed to chart in autumn 2002 despite not existing at all.

Obviously, there's a limit to the level of delay readers will put up
with. If issue #4 had come out on time, almost 40,000 more copies would
have been in circulation.

And no, those aren't misprints - Marvel have changed the length of the
miniseries twice as it went along.

32,41. X-FACTOR
Dec 05 X-Factor #1 - 56,053
Dec 05 X-Factor #2 - 44,951 (-19.8%)

More Decimation. X-FACTOR #1 was originally due out in November, but
slipped into December instead. So we get two issues for its chart
debut, and the book's off to a very solid start. Nothing to worry about
here.

34. YOUNG AVENGERS SPECIAL
Dec 05 Young Avengers Special #1 - 51,020

YOUNG AVENGERS normally sells around 63,000, so you have to question the
wisdom of publishing this vital origin issue as a separate comic. We
saw the same thing with the NEW X-MEN YEARBOOK, likewise central to the
parent title's plot, but ordered by retailers as if it were an
inessential spin-off. Throwing in the ULTIMATE X-MEN book above, and
the FANTASTIC FOUR SPECIAL further down, Marvel might want to consider
whether this is really a sensible way to be packaging these stories.
It's just throwing away money.

36. NEW EXCALIBUR
Nov 05 New Excalibur #1 - 58,333
Dec 05 New Excalibur #2 - 48,816 (-16.3%)

Standard second-issue drop. Again, this is a nominal Decimation tie-in,
if that makes any difference. We won't know for sure until the
crossover ends and we see what happens to sales.

38. FANTASTIC FOUR
Dec 01 Fantastic Four #50 - 52,471
Dec 02 Fantastic Four #64 - 50,211
Dec 03 Fantastic Four #508 - 50,333
======
Dec 04 Fantastic Four #521 - 47,634 ( -7.8%)
Jan 05 Fantastic Four #522 - 46,335 ( -2.7%)
Feb 05 Fantastic Four #523 - 46,276 ( -0.1%)
Mar 05 Fantastic Four #524 - 46,660 ( +0.8%)
Apr 05 Fantastic Four #525 - 45,561 ( -2.4%)
May 05 Fantastic Four #526 - 44,935 ( -1.4%)
May 05 Fantastic Four #527 - 75,525 (+68.1%)
Jun 05 Fantastic Four #528 - 55,937 (-25.9%)
Jul 05 Fantastic Four #529 - 52,963 ( -5.3%)
Aug 05 Fantastic Four #530 - 51,782 ( -2.2%)
Sep 05 Fantastic Four #531 - 49,745 ( -3.9%)
Oct 05 n/a
Nov 05 Fantastic Four #532 - 47,771 ( -4.0%)
Dec 05 Fantastic Four #533 - 46,751 ( -2.1%)
6 mnth (-16.4%)
1 year ( -1.9%)
2 year ( -7.1%)

There was no issue of FANTASTIC FOUR solicited for December, allowing
the book to get back on schedule after it missed shipping in October.
After the initial surge of interest for the new creative team, the book
has quickly returned to its normal levels.

42. CAPTAIN AMERICA
Dec 01 Captain America #50 - 40,010
Dec 02 Captain America #7 - 57,410
Dec 03 Captain America #21 - 43,018
======
Dec 04 n/a
Jan 05 Captain America #2 - 53,306 (-20.7%)
Feb 05 Captain America #3 - 48,104 ( -9.8%)
Mar 05 Captain America #4 - 46,654 ( -3.0%)
Apr 05 Captain America #5 - 46,976 ( +0.7%)
May 05 Captain America #6 - 58,660 (+24.9%)
Jun 05 Captain America #7 - 47,160 (-19.6%)
Jul 05 n/a
Aug 05 Captain America #8 - 51,842 ( +9.9%)
Aug 05 Captain America #9 - 44,638 (-13.9%)
Sep 05 Captain America #10 - 52,609 (+17.9%)
Oct 05 Captain America #11 - 45,162 (-14.2%)
Nov 05 Captain America #12 - 45,038 ( -0.3%)
Dec 05 Captain America #13 - 44,954 ( -0.2%)
6 mnth ( -4.7%)
1 year (-15.7%)
2 year ( +4.5%)

Still rock solid in the mid-40K range, when you filter out the variant
covers and the crossovers.

43. GENERATION M
Nov 05 Generation M #1 (of 5) - 54,617
Dec 05 Generation M #2 (of 5) - 43,549 (-20.3%)

More Decimation. Issue #1 picks up 3,151 re-orders to chart at number
248. Taking that into account, the second issue drop isn't too bad.

44. NEW X-MEN
Dec 04 New X-Men #7 - 43,024 ( -5.7%)
Jan 05 New X-Men #8 - 40,179 ( -6.6%)
Jan 05 New X-Men #9 - 38,197 ( -4.9%)
Feb 05 New X-Men #10 - 36,910 ( -3.4%)
Mar 05 New X-Men #11 - 35,549 ( -3.7%)
Apr 05 New X-Men #12 - 35,779 ( +0.6%)
May 05 New X-Men #13 - 35,033 ( -2.1%)
May 05 New X-Men #14 - 34,579 ( -1.3%)
Jun 05 New X-Men #15 - 34,007 ( -1.7%)
Jul 05 New X-Men #16 - 49,217 (+44.7%)
Aug 05 New X-Men #17 - 43,908 (-10.8%)
Sep 05 New X-Men #18 - 43,286 ( -1.4%)
Oct 05 New X-Men #19 - 41,691 ( -3.7%)
Nov 05 New X-Men #20 - 59,466 (+42.6%)
Dec 05 New X-Men #21 - 43,473 (-26.9%)
6 mnth (+27.8%)
1 year ( +1.0%)

More Decimation. But the event doesn't seem to be making much
difference generally, so it's probably safe to say that the change of
direction and perhaps the addition of X-23 are the main factors allowing
NEW X-MEN to sustain its HOUSE OF M sales boost.

There's a variant cover of issue #20 at number 202, with orders of
6,404.

45. DAREDEVIL
Dec 01 Daredevil #28 - 49,733
Dec 02 Daredevil #40 - 54,292
Dec 03 Daredevil #55 - 53,660
======
Dec 04 Daredevil #68 - 50,491 ( -1.7%)
Jan 05 Daredevil #69 - 48,727 ( -3.5%)
Feb 05 Daredevil #70 - 48,702 ( -0.0%)
Mar 05 Daredevil #71 - 49,715 ( +2.1%)
Apr 05 Daredevil #72 - 48,803 ( -1.8%)
May 05 Daredevil #73 - 48,681 ( -0.2%)
Jun 05 Daredevil #74 - 48,175 ( -1.0%)
Jul 05 Daredevil #75 - 47,800 ( -0.8%)
Aug 05 Daredevil #76 - 46,424 ( -2.9%)
Sep 05 Daredevil #77 - 45,945 ( -1.0%)
Oct 05 Daredevil #78 - 45,071 ( -1.9%)
Nov 05 Daredevil #79 - 44,250 ( -1.8%)
Dec 05 Daredevil #80 - 43,309 ( -2.1%)
6 mnth (-10.1%)
1 year (-14.2%)
2 year (-19.3%)

Drifting down as the Bendis/Maleev run nears the end.

49. SENTRY
Sep 05 Sentry #1 (of 8) - 93,021
Oct 05 Sentry #2 (of 8) - 53,384 (-42.6%)
Nov 05 Sentry #3 (of 8) - 47,903 (-10.3%)
Dec 05 Sentry #4 (of 8) - 41,901 (-12.5%)

Dropping rather too quickly for comfort. It shouldn't be shedding over
10% an issue by this point.

52. INCREDIBLE HULK
Dec 01 Incredible Hulk #35 - 34,446
Dec 02 Incredible Hulk #48 - 48,668
Dec 03 Incredible Hulk #64 - 51,960
======
Dec 04 Hulk & Thing #4 (of 4) - 31,003 ( -9.2%)
Jan 05 Incredible Hulk #77 - 47,180 (+52.2%)
Feb 05 Incredible Hulk #78 - 44,721 ( -5.2%)
Mar 05 Incredible Hulk #79 - 43,508 ( -2.7%)
Apr 05 Incredible Hulk #80 - 48,404 (+11.3%)
May 05 Incredible Hulk #81 - 43,822 (-10.5%)
Jun 05 Incredible Hulk #82 - 43,248 ( -1.3%)
Jul 05 Incredible Hulk #83 - 63,881 (+47.7%)
Jul 05 Incredible Hulk #84 - 58,583 ( -8.3%)
Aug 05 Incredible Hulk #85 - 53,177 ( -9.2%)
Sep 05 Incredible Hulk #86 - 52,992 ( -0.3%)
Oct 05 Incredible Hulk #87 - 42,454 (-19.9%)
Nov 05 Incredible Hulk #88 - 41,141 ( -3.1%)
Nov 05 Incredible Hulk #89 - 39,635 ( -3.7%)
Dec 05 Incredible Hulk #90 - 36,924 ( -6.8%)
6 mnth (-14.6%)
1 year (+19.1%)
2 year (-28.9%)

You can ignore the 1 year comparison - it's with the final issue of HULK
& THING: HARD KNOCKS, which was a sales disaster, so it doesn't really
count.

After a HOUSE OF M crossover, HULK returned to its normal levels with
issue #87, and has just been drifting down since then. Which is a
little worrying for Marvel, because this is the lead-in to "Planet
Hulk", and it doesn't seem to be generating much interest at all. If
you solicit something as "the story arc that will set off the biggest
Hulk event in Marvel history", you're probably hoping for something a
bit better than complete indifference.

54. NEW AVENGERS: MOST WANTED FILES
Dec 05 New Avengers: Most Wanted Files - 35,541

Another HANDBOOK spin-off, bizarrely tying in with a NEW AVENGERS
storyline from a year earlier.

55. PUNISHER
Dec 01 Punisher #7 - 59,606
Dec 02 Punisher #20 - 43,514
Dec 03 Punisher #37 - 38,561
======
Dec 04 Punisher #15 - 40,357 ( -2.8%)
Jan 05 Punisher #16 - 39,341 ( -2.5%)
Feb 05 Punisher #17 - 38,714 ( -1.6%)
Mar 05 Punisher #18 - 38,348 ( -0.9%)
Apr 05 Punisher #19 - 38,753 ( +1.1%)
Apr 05 Punisher #20 - 38,130 ( -1.6%)
May 05 Punisher #21 - 37,998 ( -0.3%)
Jun 05 Punisher #22 - 37,811 ( -0.5%)
Jul 05 Punisher #23 - 37,376 ( -1.2%)
Aug 05 Punisher #24 - 37,022 ( -0.9%)
Sep 05 Punisher #25 - 37,149 ( +0.3%)
Oct 05 Punisher #26 - 36,450 ( -1.9%)
Nov 05 Punisher #27 - 36,072 ( -1.0%)
Dec 05 Punisher #28 - 35,535 ( -1.5%)
6 mnth ( -6.0%)
1 year (-11.9%)
2 year ( -7.8%)

Usual deal - extremely consistent in the mid-30K range.

56. MARVEL ZOMBIES
Dec 05 Marvel Zombies #1 (of 5) - 35,497

A possible sleeper hit, judging from the fact that it's going back to
print. This is a cautious initial order, so if it really has been
selling out quickly, we might see significant re-order activity to come.
Watch this space for the January charts.

57. EXILES
Dec 01 Exiles #7 - 40,075
Dec 02 Exiles #20 - 36,796
Dec 03 Exiles #38 - 38,542
======
Dec 04 Exiles #55 - 33,744 ( -1.3%)
Dec 04 Exiles #56 - 33,396 ( -1.0%)
Dec 04 Exiles #57 - 33,183 ( -0.6%)
Jan 05 Exiles #58 - 32,129 ( -3.2%)
Feb 05 Exiles #59 - 32,337 ( +0.6%)
Mar 05 Exiles #60 - 42,898 (+32.7%)
Mar 05 Exiles #61 - 42,217 ( -1.6%)
Apr 05 Exiles #62 - 33,965 (-19.5%)
Apr 05 Exiles #63 - 33,728 ( -0.7%)
May 05 Exiles #64 - 34,033 ( +0.9%)
Jun 05 Exiles #65 - 34,484 ( +1.3%)
Jul 05 Exiles #66 - 34,092 ( -1.1%)
Jul 05 Exiles #67 - 33,751 ( -1.0%)
Aug 05 Exiles #68 - 33,815 ( +0.2%)
Sep 05 Exiles #69 - 43,794 (+29.5%)
Sep 05 Exiles #70 - 42,434 ( -3.1%)
Oct 05 Exiles #71 - 41,131 ( -3.1%)
Nov 05 Exiles #72 - 34,329 (-16.5%)
Nov 05 Exiles #73 - 34,008 ( -0.9%)
Dec 05 Exiles #74 - 33,881 ( -0.4%)
6 mnth ( -1.7%)
1 year ( +0.4%)
2 year (-12.1%)

Crossovers aside, EXILES celebrates a whole year of never budging from
the 32-34K range. Marvel's most consistent title by a mile.

58. SUPREME POWER: HYPERION
Sep 05 Hyperion #1 (of 5) - 42,546
Oct 05 Hyperion #2 (of 5) - 37,423 (-12.0%)
Nov 05 n/a
Dec 05 Hyperion #3 (of 5) - 33,609 (-10.2%)

61. SUPREME POWER: NIGHTHAWK
Sep 05 Nighthawk #1 (of 6) - 39,505
Oct 05 Nighthawk #2 (of 6) - 35,183 (-10.9%)
Nov 05 Nighthawk #3 (of 6) - 33,228 ( -5.6%)
Dec 05 Nighthawk #4 (of 6) - 32,207 ( -3.1%)

Fairly standard declines for both of these, although HYPERION is losing
readers a little faster.

64. IRON MAN: INEVITABLE
Dec 05 Inevitable #1 (of 6) - 31,032

Six-issue miniseries trying to fill the gap where the actual IRON MAN
title ought to be. This is the sort of level that IRON MAN used to do
before its relaunch, so Marvel should be happy enough with that. It'll
drop from here, of course, but that's only to be expected with a
spin-off miniseries.

67. DAREDEVIL: FATHER
Dec 04 n/a
Jan 05 n/a
Feb 05 n/a
Mar 05 n/a
Apr 05 n/a
May 05 n/a
Jun 05 n/a
Jul 05 n/a
Aug 05 Father #2 (of 5) - 39,745 (-42.8%)
Sep 05 Father #3 (of 5) - 37,571 ( -5.5%)
Oct 05 n/a
Nov 05 Father #4 (of 5) - 33,562 (-10.7%)
Dec 05 Father #5 (of 6) - 30,249 ( -9.9%)

Yes, it's now turned into a six-issue miniseries. The general decline
continues.

69,86,89,91,100,105. WHAT IF?
Dec 05 Wolverine - 29,953
Dec 05 Captain America - 24,951
Dec 05 Fantastic Four - 24,477
Dec 05 Thor - 24,250
Dec 05 Daredevil - 23,473
Dec 05 Sub-Mariner - 22,179

This month's set of themed one-shots. WOLVERINE sells best, with the
others clustering in the 22-24K range.

Marvel did the same gimmick in December 2004 with rather more success.
That time round, the sales figures ranged from 37,879 (X-MEN) down to
29,785 (HULK). Only WOLVERINE scrapes into that range this year.

70. SHE-HULK
Dec 04 She-Hulk #10 - 23,848 ( -0.0%)
Jan 05 She-Hulk #11 - 23,235 ( -2.6%)
Feb 05 She-Hulk #12 - 23,202 ( -0.1%)
Mar 05 n/a
Apr 05 n/a
May 05 n/a
Jun 05 n/a
Jul 05 n/a
Aug 05 n/a
Sep 05 n/a
Oct 05 She-Hulk #1 - 37,220 (+60.4%)
Nov 05 She-Hulk #2 - 31,610 (-15.1%)
Dec 05 She-Hulk #3 - 29,428 ( -6.9%)
6 mnth ( n/a )
1 year (+23.4%)

Levelling out, which is promising.

71. BLACK PANTHER
Dec 01 Black Panther #39 - 19,576
Dec 02 Black Panther #52 - 18,393
======
Feb 05 Black Panther #1 - 69,930
Mar 05 Black Panther #2 - 47,533 (-32.0%)
Apr 05 Black Panther #3 - 44,925 ( -5.5%)
May 05 Black Panther #4 - 40,804 ( -9.2%)
Jun 05 Black Panther #5 - 37,401 ( -8.1%)
Jul 05 Black Panther #6 - 35,256 ( -5.7%)
Aug 05 Black Panther #7 - 42,905 (+21.7%)
Sep 05 Black Panther #8 - 46,239 ( +7.8%)
Oct 05 Black Panther #9 - 40,173 (-13.1%)
Nov 05 Black Panther #10 - 31,987 (-20.4%)
Dec 05 Black Panther #11 - 29,327 ( -8.3%)
6 mnth (-21.6%)

Once you take the crossovers out of account, it's clear that this book
is still in decline and shows no signs of levelling out. To put it
politely, there is little sign of Marvel's faith in Reginald Hudlin
being reciprocated by the audience. The book has managed to blow almost
60% of its starting readership already, and that's not exactly
promising.

76. BOOKS OF DOOM
Dec 01 Doom: Emperor Returns #2 - 31,052
======
Nov 05 Books of Doom #1 (of 6) - 34,413
Dec 05 Books of Doom #2 (of 6) - 27,767 (-19.3%)

Fairly standard second issue drop.

80. FANTASTIC FOUR SPECIAL
Dec 05 Fantastic Four Special - 25,860

Er... yes. Well, it's basically a FANTASTIC FOUR fill-in issue. There's
no immediately obvious reason for it to exist, although it's a perfectly
good story. Again, you have to ask why it's being published in this
format, when they could have run it in FANTASTIC FOUR and sold another
20,000 copies.

81. PUNISHER: SILENT NIGHT
Dec 05 Silent Night - 25,816

A Punisher Christmas special. Not a bad number, really.

82. POWERS
Dec 01 Powers #17 - 28,205
Dec 02 Powers #27 - 26,621
Dec 03 n/a
======
Dec 04 Powers #7 - 30,687 ( +0.8%)
Jan 05 Powers #8 - 29,438 ( -4.1%)
Feb 05 Powers #9 - 28,512 ( -3.1%)
Mar 05 n/a
Apr 05 Powers #10 - 28,360 ( -0.5%)
May 05 n/a
Jun 05 Powers #11 - 27,703 ( -2.3%)
Jul 05 n/a
Aug 05 Powers #12 - 30,290 ( +9.3%)
Sep 05 n/a
Oct 05 Powers #13 - 26,535 (-12.4%)
Nov 05 Powers #14 - 26,109 ( -1.6%)
Dec 05 Powers #15 - 25,633 ( -1.8%)
6 mnth ( -7.4%)
1 year (-16.5%)

Back to its core audience in the mid-20K range, but Brian Bendis won't
be complaining about that.

83. RUNAWAYS
Dec 03 Runaways #9 - 20,429
======
Feb 05 Runaways #1 - 43,128 (+131.7%)
Mar 05 Runaways #2 - 31,330 ( -27.4%)
Apr 05 Runaways #3 - 30,332 ( -3.2%)
May 05 Runaways #4 - 28,968 ( -4.5%)
Jun 05 Runaways #5 - 28,409 ( -1.9%)
Jul 05 Runaways #6 - 27,365 ( -3.7%)
Aug 05 Runaways #7 - 27,063 ( -1.1%)
Sep 05 Runaways #8 - 26,954 ( -0.4%)
Oct 05 Runaways #9 - 26,800 ( -0.6%)
Nov 05 Runaways #10 - 25,761 ( -3.9%)
Dec 05 Runaways #11 - 25,260 ( -1.9%)
6 mnth ( -11.1%)
1 year ( n/a )
2 year ( +23.6%)

Levelling out, which is good to see.

84. PUNISHER VS BULLSEYE
Nov 05 Punisher vs Bullseye #1 (of 5) - 30,048
Dec 05 Punisher vs Bullseye #2 (of 5) - 25,121 (-16.4%)

Standard second-issue drop.

85. NEW THUNDERBOLTS
Dec 01 Thunderbolts #59 - 31,052
Dec 02 Thunderbolts #75 - 27,233
======
Dec 04 New Thunderbolts #3 - 32,720 (-18.4%)
Jan 05 New Thunderbolts #4 - 31,725 ( -3.0%)
Feb 05 New Thunderbolts #5 - 29,377 ( -7.4%)
Mar 05 New Thunderbolts #6 - 29,103 ( -0.9%)
Apr 05 New Thunderbolts #7 - 28,977 ( -0.4%)
May 05 New Thunderbolts #8 - 27,769 ( -4.2%)
Jun 05 New Thunderbolts #9 - 27,300 ( -1.7%)
Jul 05 New Thunderbolts #10 - 25,978 ( -4.8%)
Aug 05 New Thunderbolts #11 - 37,036 (+42.6%)
Sep 05 New Thunderbolts #12 - 25,912 (-30.0%)
Oct 05 New Thunderbolts #13 - 29,250 (+12.9%)
Oct 05 New Thunderbolts #14 - 27,864 ( -4.7%)
Nov 05 New Thunderbolts #15 - 25,245 ( -9.4%)
Dec 05 New Thunderbolts #16 - 25,084 ( -0.6%)
6 mnth ( -8.1%)
1 year (-23.3%)

Virtually no change from last month. NEW THUNDERBOLTS may have found
its level.

96. X-MEN: COLOSSUS - BLOODLINE
Sep 05 Colossus #1 (of 5) - 36,509
Oct 05 Colossus #2 (of 5) - 28,886 (-20.9%)
Nov 05 Colossus #3 (of 5) - 26,123 ( -9.6%)
Dec 05 Colossus #4 (of 5) - 23,694 ( -9.3%)

Fairly normal miniseries numbers.

97. THING
Nov 05 Thing #1 - 30,188
Dec 05 Thing #2 - 23,606 (-21.8%)

Mmm. That's a pretty big drop, and THING doesn't have that much leeway
to work with. Not encouraging.

101. CABLE & DEADPOOL
Dec 04 Cable & Deadpool #10 - 26,911 ( -2.5%)
Jan 05 Cable & Deadpool #11 - 25,844 ( -4.0%)
Feb 05 Cable & Deadpool #12 - 25,349 ( -1.9%)
Mar 05 Cable & Deadpool #13 - 25,551 ( +0.8%)
Apr 05 Cable & Deadpool #14 - 24,994 ( -2.2%)
May 05 Cable & Deadpool #15 - 24,837 ( -0.6%)
Jun 05 Cable & Deadpool #16 - 24,612 ( -0.9%)
Jul 05 Cable & Deadpool #17 - 34,393 (+39.7%)
Aug 05 Cable & Deadpool #18 - 25,304 (-26.4%)
Sep 05 Cable & Deadpool #19 - 25,298 ( -0.0%)
Sep 05 Cable & Deadpool #20 - 24,982 ( -1.2%)
Oct 05 Cable & Deadpool #21 - 25,030 ( +0.2%)
Nov 05 Cable & Deadpool #22 - 23,746 ( -5.1%)
Dec 05 Cable & Deadpool #23 - 23,296 ( -1.9%)
6 mnth ( -5.3%)
1 year (-13.4%)

Another remarkably solid Fabian Nicieza title.

103. MARVEL KNIGHTS 4
Dec 04 Marvel Knights 4 #13 - 32,623 ( -5.5%)
Jan 05 Marvel Knights 4 #14 - 31,291 ( -4.1%)
Feb 05 Marvel Knights 4 #15 - 30,230 ( -3.4%)
Mar 05 Marvel Knights 4 #16 - 29,600 ( -2.1%)
Apr 05 Marvel Knights 4 #17 - 29,189 ( -1.4%)
May 05 Marvel Knights 4 #18 - 28,649 ( -1.9%)
Jun 05 Marvel Knights 4 #19 - 28,153 ( -1.7%)
Jul 05 Marvel Knights 4 #20 - 27,548 ( -2.1%)
Aug 05 Marvel Knights 4 #21 - 27,023 ( -1.9%)
Sep 05 Marvel Knights 4 #22 - 26,446 ( -2.1%)
Oct 05 Marvel Knights 4 #23 - 25,100 ( -5.1%)
Nov 05 Marvel Knights 4 #24 - 24,129 ( -3.9%)
Dec 05 Marvel Knights 4 #25 - 22,753 ( -5.7%)
6 mnth (-19.2%)
1 year (-30.3%)

Dropping consistently. There's no sign of it levelling out, and if it
carries on at this rate, it'll be getting down towards 12K by the end of
the year - way below cancellation level. Do Marvel have any plans to
turn this book around?

106. X-MEN UNLIMITED
Dec 01 n/a
Dec 02 X-Men Unlimited #40 - 36,391
Dec 03 n/a
======
Dec 04 X-Men Unlimited #6 - 30,138 ( -8.4%)
Jan 05 n/a
Feb 05 X-Men Unlimited #7 - 27,009 (-10.4%)
Mar 05 n/a
Apr 05 X-Men Unlimited #8 - 25,686 ( -4.9%)
May 05 n/a
Jun 05 X-Men Unlimited #9 - 25,398 ( -1.1%)
Jul 05 n/a
Aug 05 X-Men Unlimited #10 - 23,717 ( -6.6%)
Sep 05 n/a
Oct 05 X-Men Unlimited #11 - 23,344 ( -1.6%)
Nov 05 n/a
Dec 05 X-Men Unlimited #12 - 22,134 ( -5.2%)
6 mnth (-12.9%)
1 year (-26.6%)

Relatively steady over the last few issues.

107,109. THOR: BLOOD OATH
Dec 01 Thor #44 - 36,070
Dec 02 Thor #57 - 35,286
Dec 03 Thor #72 - 31,953
======
Sep 05 Blood Oath #1 (of 6) - 34,173 (-30.8%)
Oct 05 Blood Oath #2 (of 6) - 28,480 (-16.7%)
Oct 05 Blood Oath #3 (of 6) - 26,521 ( -6.9%)
Nov 05 Blood Oath #4 (of 6) - 24,122 ( -9.0%)
Dec 05 Blood Oath #5 (of 6) - 22,046 ( -8.6%)
Dec 05 Blood Oath #6 (of 6) - 21,364 ( -3.1%)
6 mnth ( n/a )
1 year ( n/a )
2 year (-33.1%)

A very respectable performance for a miniseries set in the past. All
involved should be happy about this.

110. OFFICIAL HANDBOOK OF THE MARVEL UNIVERSE
Dec 04 Golden Age 2004 - 17,356 ( -30.9%)
Jan 05 Women of Marvel 2005 - 20,837 ( +20.1%)
Feb 05 Marvel Knights 2005 - 18,182 ( -12.7%)
Mar 05 X-Men: Age of Apocalypse 2005 - 37,056 (+103.8%)
Apr 05 Spider-Man 2005 - 25,530 ( -31.1%)
May 05 Teams 2005 - 22,564 ( -11.6%)
Jun 05 Fantastic Four 2005 - 21,970 ( -2.6%)
Jul 05 Avengers 2005 - 23,668 ( +7.7%)
Aug 05 Ultimate Universe 2005 - 25,436 ( +7.5%)
Sep 05 Alternate Universes 2005 - 18,680 ( -26.6%)
Oct 05 Horror 2005 - 15,849 ( -15.2%)
Nov 05 X-Men 2005 - 22,986 ( +45.0%)
Dec 05 Ultimates/Ultimate X-Men 2005 - 20,795 ( -9.5%)
6 mnth ( -5.3%)
1 year ( +19.8%)

Another solid month for the HANDBOOK as it deals with two major titles.

113. MARVEL TEAM-UP
Dec 04 Marvel Team-Up #3 - 29,085 (-22.5%)
Jan 05 Marvel Team-Up #4 - 27,216 ( -6.4%)
Feb 05 Marvel Team-Up #5 - 28,141 ( +3.4%)
Mar 05 Marvel Team-Up #6 - 24,762 (-12.0%)
Apr 05 Marvel Team-Up #7 - 24,800 ( +0.2%)
May 05 Marvel Team-Up #8 - 24,270 ( -2.1%)
Jun 05 Marvel Team-Up #9 - 23,530 ( -3.0%)
Jul 05 Marvel Team-Up #10 - 22,549 ( -4.2%)
Aug 05 Marvel Team-Up #11 - 22,150 ( -1.8%)
Sep 05 Marvel Team-Up #12 - 21,240 ( -4.1%)
Oct 05 Marvel Team-Up #13 - 21,048 ( -0.9%)
Nov 05 Marvel Team-Up #14 - 26,200 (+24.5%)
Dec 05 Marvel Team-Up #15 - 20,000 (-23.7%)
6 mnth (-15.0%)
1 year (-31.2%)

Apparently last month's spike really was for the INVINCIBLE crossover,
because MARVEL TEAM-UP goes straight back to normal levels with its new
arc. We're now at the 20K mark, and surely we must be starting to test
the limits of Marvel's tolerance.

122. G.L.X-MAS SPECIAL
Dec 05 G.L.X-Mas Special - 18,415

The G.L.A. miniseries debuted with 35,150 sales and wrapped up with
25,611, so we're a bit below that level. But then, it's a Christmas
special, so you can't expect wonders.

125. SPIDER-GIRL
Dec 01 Spider-Girl #41 - 23,573
Dec 02 Spider-Girl #54 - 24,389
Dec 03 Spider-Girl #67 - 21,403
======
Dec 04 Spider-Girl #81 - 20,419 ( -3.4%)
Jan 05 Spider-Girl #82 - 20,005 ( -2.0%)
Feb 05 Spider-Girl #83 - 20,382 ( +1.9%)
Mar 05 Spider-Girl #84 - 20,050 ( -1.6%)
Apr 05 Spider-Girl #85 - 19,682 ( -1.8%)
May 05 Spider-Girl #86 - 19,452 ( -1.2%)
Jun 05 Spider-Girl #87 - 19,605 ( +0.8%)
Jul 05 Spider-Girl #88 - 18,983 ( -3.2%)
Aug 05 Spider-Girl #89 - 18,538 ( -2.3%)
Sep 05 Spider-Girl #90 - 18,344 ( -1.0%)
Oct 05 Spider-Girl #91 - 18,159 ( -1.0%)
Nov 05 Spider-Girl #92 - 17,597 ( -3.1%)
Dec 05 Spider-Girl #93 - 17,057 ( -3.1%)
6 mnth (-13.0%)
1 year (-16.5%)
2 year (-20.3%)

Cancelled with issue #100, although we've all heard that before. That
said, after years of relatively solidity, SPIDER-GIRL has started to
shed readers over the last year or so. This time, things may be
different.

127. BLACK WIDOW
Dec 04 Black Widow #4 (of 6) - 24,371 ( -9.2%)
Jan 05 Black Widow #5 (of 6) - 22,596 ( -7.3%)
Feb 05 Black Widow #6 (of 6) - 21,478 ( -4.9%)
Mar 05 n/a
Apr 05 n/a
May 05 n/a
Jun 05 n/a
Jul 05 n/a
Aug 05 n/a
Sep 05 Black Widow 2 #1 (of 6) - 27,390 (+27.5%)
Oct 05 Black Widow 2 #2 (of 6) - 20,867 (-23.8%)
Nov 05 Black Widow 2 #3 (of 6) - 19,493 ( -6.6%)
Dec 05 Black Widow 2 #4 (of 6) - 16,647 (-14.6%)
6 mnth ( n/a )
1 year (-31.7%)

Quietly disappearing off everyone's radar.

132. BOOK OF LOST SOULS
Oct 05 Book of Lost Souls #1 - 24,365
Nov 05 Book of Lost Souls #2 - 20,002 (-17.9%)
Dec 05 Book of Lost Souls #3 - 15,308 (-23.5%)

A book which I completely forgot to include over the last two months.
Oops.

This is an ongoing series by J Michael Straczynski and Colleen Doran.
It's an Icon book, so the normal Marvel economics won't apply. That
said, these are not great numbers for the first three issues. 24K is
okay for a start, but shedding 9,000 readers - more than half the
audience - in the first two months? Not good.

I'm a little sceptical about just how big a draw Straczynski is at this
point. After all, he hasn't made any difference to FANTASTIC FOUR
besides an initial spike. Sales on AMAZING SPIDER-MAN peaked long ago.
ARAÑA tanked (although admittedly, he wasn't so directly involved with
that one). And BOOK OF LOST SOULS isn't looking too healthy.

Then again, a lot of prominent creators still struggle to launch
creator-owned books. And it's still doing better than its Icon
stablemate KABUKI. But I suspect these numbers will be causing some
disappointment.

140. SENTINEL
Dec 03 Sentinel #10 - 17,562
======
Nov 05 Sentinel #1 (of 5) - 18,866 (+25.7%)
Dec 05 Sentinel #2 (of 5) - 14,108 (-25.2%)
2 year (-19.7%)

A rather steep drop, but not entirely unexpected.

145. NICK FURY'S HOWLING COMMANDOS
Oct 05 Nick Fury's Howling Commandos #1 - 29,743
Nov 05 Nick Fury's Howling Commandos #2 - 17,360 (-41.6%)
Dec 05 Nick Fury's Howling Commandos #3 - 13,331 (-23.2%)

Not officially cancelled yet, but they seem to have stopped soliciting
it after issue #6. Considering the heavy promotion, it's hard to see
this as anything but a disaster. Even ARAÑA did better than this.

152. DRAX THE DESTROYER
Sep 05 Drax the Destroyer #1 (of 4) - 20,996
Oct 05 Drax the Destroyer #2 (of 4) - 16,598 (-20.9%)
Nov 05 Drax the Destroyer #3 (of 4) - 15,038 ( -9.4%)
Dec 05 Drax the Destroyer #4 (of 4) - 12,093 (-19.6%)

Not enormous sales, but considering it's a marginal character in an
underpromoted miniseries, it could have been an awful lot worse.

156. AMAZING FANTASY
Dec 04 n/a
Jan 05 n/a
Feb 05 n/a
Mar 05 n/a
Apr 05 Amazing Fantasy #7 - 21,802 ( -8.9%)
May 05 Amazing Fantasy #8 - 17,773 (-18.5%)
Jun 05 Amazing Fantasy #9 - 15,606 (-12.2%)
Jul 05 Amazing Fantasy #10 - 14,729 ( -5.6%)
Aug 05 Amazing Fantasy #11 - 12,788 (-13.2%)
Sep 05 Amazing Fantasy #12 - 11,983 ( -6.3%)
Oct 05 Amazing Fantasy #13 - 11,973 ( -0.0%)
Oct 05 Amazing Fantasy #14 - 11,623 ( -2.9%)
Nov 05 Amazing Fantasy #15 - 13,958 (+20.1%)
Dec 05 Amazing Fantasy #16 - 11,816 (-15.3%)
6 mnth (-24.3%)

Straight back to normal levels. Again, you have to wonder how long
Marvel are going to put up with this. This is the first part of a
Death's Head revamp which, bizarrely, ties in to "Planet Hulk."

163. SPIDER-MAN LOVES MARY JANE
Dec 05 Spider-Man Loves Mary Jane #1 - 11,171

Ongoing series following on from the MARY JANE and MARY JANE: HOMECOMING
miniseries. Neither of those books did particularly good business in
the direct market, so the driving force here must be digest sales -
which was always the aim. It's not a great debut by direct market
standards, but it really doesn't matter.

166. NEW WARRIORS
Jun 05 New Warriors #1 (of 6) - 20,841
Jul 05 New Warriors #2 (of 6) - 15,449 (-25.9%)
Aug 05 New Warriors #3 (of 6) - 13,485 (-12.7%)
Sep 05 New Warriors #4 (of 6) - 12,484 ( -7.4%)
Oct 05 n/a
Nov 05 New Warriors #5 (of 6) - 11,434 ( -8.4%)
Dec 05 New Warriors #6 (of 6) - 10,875 ( -4.9%)
6 mnth (-47.8%)

Just managing to stay above 10K with its final issue. Deserved better,
really.

168. ARAÑA: HEART OF THE SPIDER
Jan 05 Araña #1 - 29,843 (+24.8%)
Feb 05 n/a
Mar 05 Araña #2 - 22,131 (-25.8%)
Mar 05 Araña #3 - 20,002 ( -9.6%)
Apr 05 n/a
May 05 Araña #4 - 18,752 ( -6.2%)
Jun 05 Araña #5 - 16,379 (-12.7%)
Jul 05 n/a
Aug 05 Araña #6 - 15,258 ( -6.8%)
Aug 05 Araña #7 - 14,627 ( -4.1%)
Sep 05 Araña #8 - 13,758 ( -5.9%)
Sep 05 Araña #9 - 12,920 ( -6.1%)
Oct 05 Araña #10 - 11,924 ( -7.7%)
Nov 05 Araña #11 - 11,169 ( -6.3%)
Dec 05 Araña #12 - 10,407 ( -6.8%)
6 mnth (-36.5%)

Axed - or at least, they've stopped soliciting it after this issue.
However, there's a special still to come, so the character's not
finished yet.

169. FANTASTIC FOUR & IRON MAN: BIG IN JAPAN
Oct 05 Big in Japan #1 (of 4) - 17,690
Nov 05 Big in Japan #2 (of 4) - 12,354 (-30.2%)
Dec 05 Big in Japan #3 (of 4) - 10,313 (-16.5%)

Well, this is sinking without trace. A shame, actually - I thought it
was really good. But I'm obviously in the minority.

174. MARVEL SPOTLIGHT
Dec 05 John Cassaday & Sean McKeever - 9,763

First in a series of creator profiles. Interest is muted.

182. DAUGHTERS OF THE DRAGON: DEADLY HANDS
Dec 05 Deadly Hands - 8,614

A reprint book, presumably to promote January's DAUGHTERS OF THE DRAGON
miniseries. Not a bad number for a reprint.

187. X-MEN & POWER PACK
Oct 05 X-Men & Power Pack #1 (of 4) - 12,295
Nov 05 X-Men & Power Pack #2 (of 4) - 9,482 (-22.9%)
Dec 05 X-Men & Power Pack #3 (of 4) - 8,380 (-11.6%)

Er... well, it's levelling out. And of course, it's presumably aimed at
the digest market.

203. MARVEL ADVENTURES SPIDER-MAN
Mar 05 Marvel Adventures Spider-Man #1 - 14,351
Apr 05 Marvel Adventures Spider-Man #2 - 10,305 (-28.2%)
May 05 Marvel Adventures Spider-Man #3 - 9,110 (-11.6%)
Jun 05 Marvel Adventures Spider-Man #4 - 8,878 ( -2.5%)
Jul 05 Marvel Adventures Spider-Man #5 - 8,075 ( -9.0%)
Aug 05 Marvel Adventures Spider-Man #6 - 7,636 ( -5.4%)
Sep 05 Marvel Adventures Spider-Man #7 - 7,199 ( -5.7%)
Oct 05 Marvel Adventures Spider-Man #8 - 7,088 ( -1.5%)
Nov 05 Marvel Adventures Spider-Man #9 - 6,637 ( -6.4%)
Dec 05 Marvel Adventures Spider-Man #10 - 6,391 ( -3.7%)
6 mnth (-28.0%)

213. MARVEL ADVENTURES: FANTASTIC FOUR
May 05 Marvel Adventures: Fantastic Four #0 - 9,723
Jun 05 Marvel Adventures: Fantastic Four #1 - 9,617 ( -1.1%)
Jul 05 Marvel Adventures: Fantastic Four #2 - 6,864 (-28.6%)
Aug 05 Marvel Adventures: Fantastic Four #3 - 6,447 ( -6.1%)
Sep 05 Marvel Adventures: Fantastic Four #4 - 6,064 ( -5.9%)
Oct 05 Marvel Adventures: Fantastic Four #5 - 5,969 ( -1.6%)
Nov 05 Marvel Adventures: Fantastic Four #6 - 5,522 ( -7.5%)
Dec 05 Marvel Adventures: Fantastic Four #7 - 5,058 ( -8.4%)
6 mnth (-47.4%)

As usual, it doesn't matter what these two books sell in the direct
market - they're not aimed at that audience.

Skip months
===========

ASTONISHING X-MEN
Dec 04 Astonishing X-Men #7 - 153,516 (+13.9%)
Jan 05 n/a
Feb 05 Astonishing X-Men #8 - 153,395 ( -0.0%)
Mar 05 Astonishing X-Men #9 - 135,325 (-11.8%)
Apr 05 n/a
May 05 Astonishing X-Men #10 - 156,298 (+15.5%)
Jun 05 n/a
Jul 05 Astonishing X-Men #11 - 127,768 (-18.3%)
Aug 05 Astonishing X-Men #12 - 134,693 ( +5.4%)
Sep 05 n/a
Oct 05 n/a
Nov 05 n/a
Dec 05 n/a

Hiatus.

ULTIMATE X-MEN
Dec 01 Ultimate X-Men #13 - 100,442
Dec 02 Ultimate X-Men #26 - 87,893
Dec 03 Ultimate X-Men #40 - 104,443
======
Dec 04 n/a
Jan 05 Ultimate X-Men #54 - 90,619 ( -1.6%)
Jan 05 Ultimate X-Men #55 - 87,447 ( -3.5%)
Feb 05 Ultimate X-Men #56 - 86,130 ( -1.5%)
Mar 05 Ultimate X-Men #57 - 83,835 ( -2.7%)
Apr 05 Ultimate X-Men #58 - 82,606 ( -1.5%)
May 05 Ultimate X-Men #59 - 81,321 ( -1.6%)
Jun 05 Ultimate X-Men #60 - 78,613 ( -3.3%)
Jul 05 Ultimate X-Men #61 - 87,094 (+10.8%)
Aug 05 Ultimate X-Men #62 - 76,229 (-12.5%)
Sep 05 Ultimate X-Men #63 - 74,760 ( -1.9%)
Oct 05 Ultimate X-Men #64 - 75,118 ( +0.5%)
Nov 05 Ultimate X-Men #65 - 74,264 ( -1.1%)
Dec 05 n/a

Skip month.

YOUNG AVENGERS
Feb 05 Young Avengers #1 - 112,803
Mar 05 Young Avengers #2 - 79,952 (-29.1%)
Apr 05 Young Avengers #3 - 75,015 ( -6.2%)
May 05 Young Avengers #4 - 69,925 ( -6.8%)
Jun 05 Young Avengers #5 - 69,956 ( +0.0%)
Jul 05 n/a
Aug 05 Young Avengers #6 - 68,733 ( -1.7%)
Sep 05 Young Avengers #7 - 67,036 ( -2.5%)
Oct 05 Young Avengers #8 - 63,873 ( -4.7%)
Nov 05 Young Avengers #9 - 63,213 ( -1.0%)
Dec 05 n/a

Running late.

IRON MAN
Dec 01 Iron Man #49 - 35,588
Dec 02 Iron Man #62 - 33,492
Dec 03 Iron Man #75 - 31,889
======
Dec 04 Iron Man #2 - 55,051 ( -20.2%)
Jan 05 n/a
Feb 05 n/a
Mar 05 n/a
Apr 05 Iron Man #3 - 51,390 ( -6.7%)
May 05 n/a
Jun 05 n/a
Jul 05 n/a
Aug 05 Iron Man #4 - 48,403 ( -5.8%)
Sep 05 n/a
Oct 05 n/a
Nov 05 n/a
Dec 05 n/a

Painfully late. Issue #5 shipped in January 2006, and heaven only knows
when issue #6 is coming out.

PULSE
Dec 01 Alias #4 - 38,240
Dec 02 Alias #17 - 24,474
Dec 03 n/a
======
Dec 04 n/a
Jan 05 Pulse #7 - 34,779 (-15.0%)
Feb 05 n/a
Mar 05 Pulse #8 - 33,367 ( -4.1%)
Apr 05 n/a
May 05 n/a
Jun 05 Pulse #9 - 32,771 ( -1.8%)
Jul 05 Pulse #10 - 56,628 (+72.8%)
Aug 05 n/a
Sep 05 Pulse #11 - 34,919 (-38.3%)
Oct 05 n/a
Nov 05 Pulse #12 - 30,418 (-12.9%)
Dec 05 n/a

Bimonthly.

DEFENDERS
Dec 01 Defenders #12 - 22,034
======
Jul 05 Defenders #1 (of 5) - 39,510
Aug 05 Defenders #2 (of 5) - 32,853 (-16.8%)
Sep 05 Defenders #3 (of 5) - 30,768 ( -6.3%)
Oct 05 Defenders #4 (of 5) - 29,075 ( -5.5%)
Nov 05 n/a
Dec 05 n/a

Late.

SPIDER-MAN UNLIMITED
Dec 04 n/a
Jan 05 Spider-Man Unlimited #7 - 18,316 (-12.7%)
Feb 05 n/a
Mar 05 Spider-Man Unlimited #8 - 17,640 ( -3.7%)
Apr 05 n/a
May 05 Spider-Man Unlimited #9 - 16,953 ( -3.9%)
Jun 05 n/a
Jul 05 Spider-Man Unlimited #10 - 16,104 ( -5.0%)
Aug 05 n/a
Sep 05 Spider-Man Unlimited #11 - 15,684 ( -2.6%)
Oct 05 n/a
Nov 05 Spider-Man Unlimited #12 - 15,150 ( -3.4%)
Dec 05 n/a

Bimonthly.

KABUKI
Dec 04 Kabuki #3 - 13,885 (-16.9%)
Jan 05 n/a
Feb 05 n/a
Mar 05 n/a
Apr 05 Kabuki #4 - 14,327 ( +3.2%)
May 05 n/a
Jun 05 n/a
Aug 05 n/a
Sep 05 n/a
Oct 05 Kabuki #5 - 11,420 (-20.3%)
Nov 05 n/a
Dec 05 n/a

World of its own.

6 month comparisons
===================

+27.8% - New X-Men
+26.3% - Marvel Knights Spider-Man
+ 6.9% - Amazing Spider-Man
- 1.7% - Exiles
- 2.8% - Ultimate Fantastic Four
- 4.7% - Ultimates 2
- 4.7% - Captain America
- 5.3% - Cable & Deadpool
- 5.3% - Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe
- 5.7% - X-Men
- 6.0% - Punisher
- 7.4% - Powers
- 8.1% - Ultimate Spider-Man
- 8.1% - New Thunderbolts
-10.1% - Daredevil
-10.9% - Uncanny X-Men
-11.1% - Runaways
-11.6% - Wolverine
-12.9% - X-Men Unlimited
-13.0% - Spider-Girl
-14.6% - Incredible Hulk
-15.0% - Marvel Team-Up
-16.4% - Fantastic Four
-18.3% - Ultimate Iron Man
-19.2% - Marvel Knights 4
-21.6% - Black Panther
-24.3% - Amazing Fantasy
-24.5% - New Avengers
-28.0% - Marvel Adventures Spider-Man
-36.5% - Araña: Heart of the Spider
-47.4% - Marvel Adventures Fantastic Four
-47.8% - New Warriors

1 year comparisons
==================

+23.4% - She-Hulk
+19.8% - Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe
+19.1% - Incredible Hulk / Hulk & Thing
+ 6.0% - Marvel Knights Spider-Man
+ 1.0% - New X-Men
+ 0.4% - Exiles
- 1.9% - Fantastic Four
- 5.2% - Amazing Spider-Man
- 9.6% - Uncanny X-Men
-11.9% - Punisher
-13.2% - Ultimate Fantastic Four
-13.4% - Cable & Deadpool
-14.1% - X-Men
-14.2% - Daredevil
-14.3% - Wolverine
-15.7% - Captain America
-16.5% - Powers
-16.5% - Spider-Girl
-18.0% - Ultimate Spider-Man
-23.3% - New Thunderbolts
-26.6% - X-Men Unlimited
-30.3% - Marvel Knights 4
-31.2% - Marvel Team-Up
-31.7% - Black Widow
-35.4% - Ultimates 2
-55.7% - New Avengers

2 year comparison
=================

+115.0% - New Avengers / Avengers
+ 23.6% - Runaways
+ 4.5% - Captain America
- 7.1% - Fantastic Four
- 7.8% - Punisher
- 5.3% - Wolverine
- 9.6% - Ultimates
- 10.0% - Uncanny X-Men
- 12.1% - Exiles
- 12.4% - Amazing Spider-Man
- 19.3% - Daredevil
- 20.3% - Spider-Girl
- 28.9% - Incredible Hulk
- 32.7% - X-Men / New X-Men
- 33.1% - Thor: Blood Oath / Thor
- 33.5% - Ultimate Spider-Man
- 60.6% - Ultimate Fantastic Four
--
Paul O'Brien

THE X-AXIS - http://www.thexaxis.com
ARTICLE 10 - http://www.ninthart.com
IF DESTROYED - http://ifdestroyed.blogspot.com

[Sean Walsh]

Paul O'Brien wrote:
>
> 54. NEW AVENGERS: MOST WANTED FILES
> Dec 05 New Avengers: Most Wanted Files - 35,541
>
> Another HANDBOOK spin-off, bizarrely tying in with a NEW AVENGERS
> storyline from a year earlier.

And outsells what the standard HANDBOOKS have been doing for the better
part of 2 years now. They can't be disappointed.

> 70. SHE-HULK
> Dec 04 She-Hulk #10 - 23,848 ( -0.0%)
> Jan 05 She-Hulk #11 - 23,235 ( -2.6%)
> Feb 05 She-Hulk #12 - 23,202 ( -0.1%)
> Mar 05 n/a
> Apr 05 n/a
> May 05 n/a
> Jun 05 n/a
> Jul 05 n/a
> Aug 05 n/a
> Sep 05 n/a
> Oct 05 She-Hulk #1 - 37,220 (+60.4%)
> Nov 05 She-Hulk #2 - 31,610 (-15.1%)
> Dec 05 She-Hulk #3 - 29,428 ( -6.9%)
> 6 mnth ( n/a )
> 1 year (+23.4%)
>
> Levelling out, which is promising.

And #3 was the 100-pager (with $3.99 cover price). Nice.

> 71. BLACK PANTHER
> Dec 01 Black Panther #39 - 19,576
> Dec 02 Black Panther #52 - 18,393
> ======
> Feb 05 Black Panther #1 - 69,930
> Mar 05 Black Panther #2 - 47,533 (-32.0%)
> Apr 05 Black Panther #3 - 44,925 ( -5.5%)
> May 05 Black Panther #4 - 40,804 ( -9.2%)
> Jun 05 Black Panther #5 - 37,401 ( -8.1%)
> Jul 05 Black Panther #6 - 35,256 ( -5.7%)
> Aug 05 Black Panther #7 - 42,905 (+21.7%)
> Sep 05 Black Panther #8 - 46,239 ( +7.8%)
> Oct 05 Black Panther #9 - 40,173 (-13.1%)
> Nov 05 Black Panther #10 - 31,987 (-20.4%)
> Dec 05 Black Panther #11 - 29,327 ( -8.3%)
> 6 mnth (-21.6%)
>
> Once you take the crossovers out of account, it's clear that this book
> is still in decline and shows no signs of levelling out. To put it
> politely, there is little sign of Marvel's faith in Reginald Hudlin
> being reciprocated by the audience. The book has managed to blow almost
> 60% of its starting readership already, and that's not exactly
> promising.

I can only imagine what impact the BP/Storm wedding will even have at
this point.

> 83. RUNAWAYS
> Dec 03 Runaways #9 - 20,429
> ======
> Feb 05 Runaways #1 - 43,128 (+131.7%)
> Mar 05 Runaways #2 - 31,330 ( -27.4%)
> Apr 05 Runaways #3 - 30,332 ( -3.2%)
> May 05 Runaways #4 - 28,968 ( -4.5%)
> Jun 05 Runaways #5 - 28,409 ( -1.9%)
> Jul 05 Runaways #6 - 27,365 ( -3.7%)
> Aug 05 Runaways #7 - 27,063 ( -1.1%)
> Sep 05 Runaways #8 - 26,954 ( -0.4%)
> Oct 05 Runaways #9 - 26,800 ( -0.6%)
> Nov 05 Runaways #10 - 25,761 ( -3.9%)
> Dec 05 Runaways #11 - 25,260 ( -1.9%)
> 6 mnth ( -11.1%)
> 1 year ( n/a )
> 2 year ( +23.6%)
>
> Levelling out, which is good to see.

Runaways Vol.2 is pretty much the first "second season" success story,
isn't it?

> 97. THING
> Nov 05 Thing #1 - 30,188
> Dec 05 Thing #2 - 23,606 (-21.8%)
>
> Mmm. That's a pretty big drop, and THING doesn't have that much leeway
> to work with. Not encouraging.

This is pretty basic standard superheroics for a Dan Slott series.
GLA/X is humor-oriented and She-Hulk is quirky/slightly-altered.

Plus I'm getting this feeling - looking at the blah numbers from JMS's
FF run, mainly - that the FF really have failed at capturing any sort
of "love" from outside the comics world (via the movie) and that's
starting to spread around the comics world itself.

> 103. MARVEL KNIGHTS 4
> Dec 04 Marvel Knights 4 #13 - 32,623 ( -5.5%)
> Jan 05 Marvel Knights 4 #14 - 31,291 ( -4.1%)
> Feb 05 Marvel Knights 4 #15 - 30,230 ( -3.4%)
> Mar 05 Marvel Knights 4 #16 - 29,600 ( -2.1%)
> Apr 05 Marvel Knights 4 #17 - 29,189 ( -1.4%)
> May 05 Marvel Knights 4 #18 - 28,649 ( -1.9%)
> Jun 05 Marvel Knights 4 #19 - 28,153 ( -1.7%)
> Jul 05 Marvel Knights 4 #20 - 27,548 ( -2.1%)
> Aug 05 Marvel Knights 4 #21 - 27,023 ( -1.9%)
> Sep 05 Marvel Knights 4 #22 - 26,446 ( -2.1%)
> Oct 05 Marvel Knights 4 #23 - 25,100 ( -5.1%)
> Nov 05 Marvel Knights 4 #24 - 24,129 ( -3.9%)
> Dec 05 Marvel Knights 4 #25 - 22,753 ( -5.7%)
> 6 mnth (-19.2%)
> 1 year (-30.3%)
>
> Dropping consistently. There's no sign of it levelling out, and if it
> carries on at this rate, it'll be getting down towards 12K by the end of
> the year - way below cancellation level. Do Marvel have any plans to
> turn this book around?

Yes. Apparently, dropping "MARVEL KNIGHTS" will make it even more
indistinguishable from the main title and cause numbers to go up.

Either that or JMS's series will see a dramatic rise as retailers think
people talking about "4" are talking about the main book.

Either way, I don't think this book can last much longer. I'm kinda
shocked it's still around.

> 113. MARVEL TEAM-UP
> Dec 04 Marvel Team-Up #3 - 29,085 (-22.5%)
> Jan 05 Marvel Team-Up #4 - 27,216 ( -6.4%)
> Feb 05 Marvel Team-Up #5 - 28,141 ( +3.4%)
> Mar 05 Marvel Team-Up #6 - 24,762 (-12.0%)
> Apr 05 Marvel Team-Up #7 - 24,800 ( +0.2%)
> May 05 Marvel Team-Up #8 - 24,270 ( -2.1%)
> Jun 05 Marvel Team-Up #9 - 23,530 ( -3.0%)
> Jul 05 Marvel Team-Up #10 - 22,549 ( -4.2%)
> Aug 05 Marvel Team-Up #11 - 22,150 ( -1.8%)
> Sep 05 Marvel Team-Up #12 - 21,240 ( -4.1%)
> Oct 05 Marvel Team-Up #13 - 21,048 ( -0.9%)
> Nov 05 Marvel Team-Up #14 - 26,200 (+24.5%)
> Dec 05 Marvel Team-Up #15 - 20,000 (-23.7%)
> 6 mnth (-15.0%)
> 1 year (-31.2%)
>
> Apparently last month's spike really was for the INVINCIBLE crossover,
> because MARVEL TEAM-UP goes straight back to normal levels with its new
> arc. We're now at the 20K mark, and surely we must be starting to test
> the limits of Marvel's tolerance.

Kirkman's very high up on Marvel's radars, with his new ULTIMATE X
assignment and the suprise success of MARVEL ZOMBIES. So this might get
a pass for now - until the day when all else he touchs turns to dust
instead of gold...

> 122. G.L.X-MAS SPECIAL
> Dec 05 G.L.X-Mas Special - 18,415
>
> The G.L.A. miniseries debuted with 35,150 sales and wrapped up with
> 25,611, so we're a bit below that level. But then, it's a Christmas
> special, so you can't expect wonders.

Well, $ wise this book isn't too far from GLA #4 (this being $3.99
while the mini was $2.99), so it's certainly on par with what the mini
did.

> 145. NICK FURY'S HOWLING COMMANDOS
> Oct 05 Nick Fury's Howling Commandos #1 - 29,743
> Nov 05 Nick Fury's Howling Commandos #2 - 17,360 (-41.6%)
> Dec 05 Nick Fury's Howling Commandos #3 - 13,331 (-23.2%)
>
> Not officially cancelled yet, but they seem to have stopped soliciting
> it after issue #6. Considering the heavy promotion, it's hard to see
> this as anything but a disaster. Even ARAÑA did better than this.

I can't believe this was actually intended to be an ongoing. I always
thought it was a mini.....and now it apparently will be.

> 152. DRAX THE DESTROYER
> Sep 05 Drax the Destroyer #1 (of 4) - 20,996
> Oct 05 Drax the Destroyer #2 (of 4) - 16,598 (-20.9%)
> Nov 05 Drax the Destroyer #3 (of 4) - 15,038 ( -9.4%)
> Dec 05 Drax the Destroyer #4 (of 4) - 12,093 (-19.6%)
>
> Not enormous sales, but considering it's a marginal character in an
> underpromoted miniseries, it could have been an awful lot worse.

Wonder how the TPB will do, as the ANNIHILATION event this mini was
leading to pretty much came to fruition just before #4 came out.

> 169. FANTASTIC FOUR & IRON MAN: BIG IN JAPAN
> Oct 05 Big in Japan #1 (of 4) - 17,690
> Nov 05 Big in Japan #2 (of 4) - 12,354 (-30.2%)
> Dec 05 Big in Japan #3 (of 4) - 10,313 (-16.5%)
>
> Well, this is sinking without trace. A shame, actually - I thought it
> was really good. But I'm obviously in the minority.

Surprising to see a mini featuring higher-profile folks so far down
here. Looks like the "no hype" curse can affect even the FF and Iron
Man.

--
Sean

[Fallen]

Paul O'Brien wrote:

I don't find that particularly odd. A 'lot' of people have pull lists or
subscriptions that they rarely change. I mean if you've been collecting
Amazing Spider-Man for 15 years or something you're not going to leave a
1-4 issue gap every now and again when it hits a crossover. Neither are
you particularly likely to buy, in this case, 9 other comics just to
read the story.

Fallen.

[Junior-kun]

Fallen wrote:

> >
> I don't find that particularly odd. A 'lot' of people have pull lists or
> subscriptions that they rarely change. I mean if you've been collecting
> Amazing Spider-Man for 15 years or something you're not going to leave a
> 1-4 issue gap every now and again when it hits a crossover. Neither are
> you particularly likely to buy, in this case, 9 other comics just to
> read the story.
>

Why would someone want to buy Amazing Spider-man and none of the other
Spider-man books irregardless of the creators for fifteen years?

[Fallen]

Junior-kun wrote:

None of the others would have the same collectability factor? Amazing is
the original one.

Plenty of people can only afford a certain amount of comics per month
(maybe even most people) and if rationing themselves to 1 Spiderman
comic would likely pick Amazing rather than jump back and fore across
the myriad depending on creators etc.

By the jumps in the other titles a lot of people 'do' buy the crossover
issues but obviously a lot don't.

Fallen.

[Jon J. Yeager]

"Paul O'Brien" <pa...@SPAMBLOCK.esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6NV4IuD7...@esoterica.demon.co.uk...
>
> DECEMBER 2005
> =============

If it levels off at 120k, that's damn impressive indeed.

> 29. SON OF M
> Dec 05 Son of M #1 (of 6) - 62,254
>
> Another Decimation miniseries, this time starring Quicksilver. When you
> consider that it's a book about a depowered character, and that
> Quicksilver has never sold particularly well as a solo character, it's a
> very good debut.

Very good? Over 60k! That's inexplicably awesome considering the book wasn't
excessively hyped and stars a C-list character. Kudos to everyone that had
anything to do with this book (this includes Bendis, who set the stage for
Pietro's fight back to superpowerdom).

> 49. SENTRY
> Sep 05 Sentry #1 (of 8) - 93,021
> Oct 05 Sentry #2 (of 8) - 53,384 (-42.6%)
> Nov 05 Sentry #3 (of 8) - 47,903 (-10.3%)
> Dec 05 Sentry #4 (of 8) - 41,901 (-12.5%)
>
> Dropping rather too quickly for comfort. It shouldn't be shedding over
> 10% an issue by this point.

People bought Sentry #1 because of New Avengers, and because Sentry kept
being touted as Marvel's new Superman. But New Avengers hasn't done a blamed
thing with him since his introduction. The public likely felt -- with good
reason -- that they've been had, once again, and are quickly jumping off the
bandwagon.

Marvel has really dropped the ball with this character after such a
promising introduction during Breakout. I almost believed they could pull it
off when I saw Sentry rip Carnage in two. Since then, however, Both Bendis
and Quesada have been spread too thin. Jenkins alone cannot turn Sentry
into another Superman.

Marvel should have taken people's interest in Sentry a little less for
granted. He's an insignificant character in the greater scheme of things,
and it's not unlikely he will end up fading away the same way he did the
first time he was introduced all those decades ago.

Plus, that is one god-awful looking costume.

Have you read the latest issue of Hulk? I bought it because it was the final
issue before (and the introduction to) Planet Hulk... and I have NEVER gone
through an issue this quickly in my life. Freaking issues of Avengers
Disassembled -- the most decompressed story of all-time -- took more time to
read than this one did.

I jumped on with the last issue and I'm quickly jumping off. It can't even
be called decompression anymore. This was a throwaway issue that could have
been told in a single page.

In the end, I took a peek at the Hulk book for the first time in a decade
and I'm never going back. Who's writing this again?

> 54. NEW AVENGERS: MOST WANTED FILES
> Dec 05 New Avengers: Most Wanted Files - 35,541

Makes Quicksilver's 60k+ debut seem that much more impressive.

> 70. SHE-HULK
> Dec 04 She-Hulk #10 - 23,848 ( -0.0%)
> Jan 05 She-Hulk #11 - 23,235 ( -2.6%)
> Feb 05 She-Hulk #12 - 23,202 ( -0.1%)
> Mar 05 n/a
> Apr 05 n/a
> May 05 n/a
> Jun 05 n/a
> Jul 05 n/a
> Aug 05 n/a
> Sep 05 n/a
> Oct 05 She-Hulk #1 - 37,220 (+60.4%)
> Nov 05 She-Hulk #2 - 31,610 (-15.1%)
> Dec 05 She-Hulk #3 - 29,428 ( -6.9%)
> 6 mnth ( n/a )
> 1 year (+23.4%)
>
> Levelling out, which is promising.

Unfortunately, as much as I like Dan as both a writer and a character in his
own right, this book is already history.

They dropped the ball with vol.3, dropped it again by giving the Howling
Commandos the preview space that should have gone to vol.4 #1, dropped it
one more time with an unnecessary reboot, and again by celebrating issue
#100 two issues after #1 (just 13 issues after the previous #1).

Can you say EXCESSIVE? And in all the wrong ways!

She Hulk #3 (100) was the best issue I've read in years, but sales are
proving what I've been saying all along... people seem to be getting tired
of being taken for one ride after another.

That She Hulk's 100th Anniversary Issue didn't even break 30k and actually
dropped from the previous month says this party is already over. :-( If
nothing else, it made me a lifelong fan of Dan's, and I will be buying
whatever his next project is going to be without hesitation, at least to
check it out.

Hopefully, Marvel (or DC?) will treat him more seriously on his next
project. Just because you write funny material doesn't mean you're a joke.

> 80. FANTASTIC FOUR SPECIAL
> Dec 05 Fantastic Four Special - 25,860
>
> Er... yes. Well, it's basically a FANTASTIC FOUR fill-in issue. There's
> no immediately obvious reason for it to exist, although it's a perfectly
> good story. Again, you have to ask why it's being published in this
> format, when they could have run it in FANTASTIC FOUR and sold another
> 20,000 copies.

Must you really ask?

> 85. NEW THUNDERBOLTS
> Dec 01 Thunderbolts #59 - 31,052
> Dec 02 Thunderbolts #75 - 27,233
> ======
> Dec 04 New Thunderbolts #3 - 32,720 (-18.4%)
> Jan 05 New Thunderbolts #4 - 31,725 ( -3.0%)
> Feb 05 New Thunderbolts #5 - 29,377 ( -7.4%)
> Mar 05 New Thunderbolts #6 - 29,103 ( -0.9%)
> Apr 05 New Thunderbolts #7 - 28,977 ( -0.4%)
> May 05 New Thunderbolts #8 - 27,769 ( -4.2%)
> Jun 05 New Thunderbolts #9 - 27,300 ( -1.7%)
> Jul 05 New Thunderbolts #10 - 25,978 ( -4.8%)
> Aug 05 New Thunderbolts #11 - 37,036 (+42.6%)
> Sep 05 New Thunderbolts #12 - 25,912 (-30.0%)
> Oct 05 New Thunderbolts #13 - 29,250 (+12.9%)
> Oct 05 New Thunderbolts #14 - 27,864 ( -4.7%)
> Nov 05 New Thunderbolts #15 - 25,245 ( -9.4%)
> Dec 05 New Thunderbolts #16 - 25,084 ( -0.6%)
> 6 mnth ( -8.1%)
> 1 year (-23.3%)
>
> Virtually no change from last month. NEW THUNDERBOLTS may have found its
> level.

But can books survive long-term at 25k?

> 101. CABLE & DEADPOOL
> Dec 04 Cable & Deadpool #10 - 26,911 ( -2.5%)
> Jan 05 Cable & Deadpool #11 - 25,844 ( -4.0%)
> Feb 05 Cable & Deadpool #12 - 25,349 ( -1.9%)
> Mar 05 Cable & Deadpool #13 - 25,551 ( +0.8%)
> Apr 05 Cable & Deadpool #14 - 24,994 ( -2.2%)
> May 05 Cable & Deadpool #15 - 24,837 ( -0.6%)
> Jun 05 Cable & Deadpool #16 - 24,612 ( -0.9%)
> Jul 05 Cable & Deadpool #17 - 34,393 (+39.7%)
> Aug 05 Cable & Deadpool #18 - 25,304 (-26.4%)
> Sep 05 Cable & Deadpool #19 - 25,298 ( -0.0%)
> Sep 05 Cable & Deadpool #20 - 24,982 ( -1.2%)
> Oct 05 Cable & Deadpool #21 - 25,030 ( +0.2%)
> Nov 05 Cable & Deadpool #22 - 23,746 ( -5.1%)
> Dec 05 Cable & Deadpool #23 - 23,296 ( -1.9%)
> 6 mnth ( -5.3%)
> 1 year (-13.4%)
>
> Another remarkably solid Fabian Nicieza title.

...also selling at 25k a month.

Again, can books survive long term at this level? I'm not asking
sarcastically. For all they know, they very well could.

> 145. NICK FURY'S HOWLING COMMANDOS
> Oct 05 Nick Fury's Howling Commandos #1 - 29,743
> Nov 05 Nick Fury's Howling Commandos #2 - 17,360 (-41.6%)
> Dec 05 Nick Fury's Howling Commandos #3 - 13,331 (-23.2%)
>
> Not officially cancelled yet, but they seem to have stopped soliciting it
> after issue #6. Considering the heavy promotion, it's hard to see this as
> anything but a disaster. Even ARAÑA did better than this.

13k after being given all that valuable preview space in all the Marvel
books.

Can anyone argue against the notion that if this were any other field of
industry but comics, someone would have lost his job over this?

Jon

[Jon J. Yeager]

"Junior-kun" <junio...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138213430....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

>
> Why would someone want to buy Amazing Spider-man and none of the other
> Spider-man books irregardless of the creators for fifteen years?

Irregardless?

Jon

[Fallen]

Jon J. Yeager wrote:

I think that's a somewhat over the top reaction considering sales
dropped 6% while cover price went up 33%.

Nobody was taking the '100th' issue particularly seriously so that's a
good showing for this particular issue. If it levels out at mid-high
20ks it'll be safe past #12. Exiles has been safe for years at low 30s.
Cancellation is low 20s and dropping and even that isn't a certainty
these days with the trades market.

Fallen.

[Billy Bissette]

Paul O'Brien <pa...@SPAMBLOCK.esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote in

news:6NV4IuD7...@esoterica.demon.co.uk:

> 31,33. SPIDER-MAN/BLACK CAT: EVIL THAT MEN DO
>

> And no, those aren't misprints - Marvel have changed the length of the
> miniseries twice as it went along.

Well, Kevin Smith has been changing the story as he went along, anyway.
Considering it started with the death of a friend of Felicia, who was
later forgotten.

[Billy Bissette]

"Junior-kun" <junio...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1138213430....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

> Why would someone want to buy Amazing Spider-man and none of the other
> Spider-man books irregardless of the creators for fifteen years?

Expectation that Amazing will in general be the flagship book, thus
both the most important as well as the "best" title?

Shifting books between creators can be a messy affair, particularly if
you want to give new guys a shot. A lot of effort to request drops,
adds, and temporary suspensions as teams change, as stories change,
as crossovers appear, and as crossovers interfere.

If you really feel a crossover is interesting, you can generally flip
through the other book(s) in the shop and request them to be temporarily
added. Often, it doesn't seem people *want* the crossovers though.

I rode out the X-Men side of the Black Panther/X-Men crossover, even
though I had little intention of buying Panther. (I liked Panther under
Priest, and I was kind of fond of more classic Panther, but I don't like
the current run.) The bit of the crossover I saw in X-Men didn't give
me any incentive to buy the Panther side. But it wasn't worth the
effort to drop one issue of X-Men just to skip one part of the
crossover. (There were two X-Men issues, and I had to get the first to
judge the crossover anyway. So there would only be one that I could
really skip.)

Marvel certainly takes advantage of that mentality. They've arguably
pushed it past its bounds when they tried shoving failed graphic novel
concepts into an ongoing series as a weekly special, as with the arena
storyline in X-Treme X-Men. (A practice which also abused multiple
issues shipping in the same month carrying similar orders.)

And they've paid the price for offering more visible outs. Again
the example being X-Treme, in particular the two issue swtich to X-pose
or whatever it was. People dropped at the name change, and not all of
them came back afterwards.

[Shawn H]

In rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe Jon J. Yeager <n...@spam.com> wrote:

: > 3. NEW AVENGERS
: > Dec 05 New Avengers #14 - 124,300 ( -1.5%)

: If it levels off at 120k, that's damn impressive indeed.

So it's not bleeding readers at an inexorably downward rate as they
rush to reject Bendis after all?

: > 29. SON OF M

: > Dec 05 Son of M #1 (of 6) - 62,254

: Very good? Over 60k! That's inexplicably awesome considering the book wasn't

: excessively hyped and stars a C-list character. Kudos to everyone that had
: anything to do with this book (this includes Bendis, who set the stage for
: Pietro's fight back to superpowerdom).

Good art.

: > 49. SENTRY
: > Dec 05 Sentry #4 (of 8) - 41,901 (-12.5%)

: >
: > Dropping rather too quickly for comfort. It shouldn't be shedding over
: > 10% an issue by this point.

: Marvel should have taken people's interest in Sentry a little less for

: granted. He's an insignificant character in the greater scheme of things,
: and it's not unlikely he will end up fading away the same way he did the
: first time he was introduced all those decades ago.
: Plus, that is one god-awful looking costume.

But his Watchtower is so pretty!

: > 54. NEW AVENGERS: MOST WANTED FILES

: > Dec 05 New Avengers: Most Wanted Files - 35,541

: Makes Quicksilver's 60k+ debut seem that much more impressive.

Didn't find it all that bizarre that it referenced the breakout story
from Avengers, though: all those villains are still at large, and
eligible for stories should Bendis stay on his high-selling Avengers
gig.

: > 70. SHE-HULK
: > Dec 05 She-Hulk #3 - 29,428 ( -6.9%)
: >
: > Levelling out, which is promising.

: She Hulk #3 (100) was the best issue I've read in years, but sales are

: proving what I've been saying all along... people seem to be getting tired
: of being taken for one ride after another.

I've subbed this time, which I hadn't last time.

: > 85. NEW THUNDERBOLTS
: > Dec 05 New Thunderbolts #16 - 25,084 ( -0.6%)
: >
: > Virtually no change from last month. NEW THUNDERBOLTS may have found its
: > level.

: But can books survive long-term at 25k?

DC books can.

Shawn H.

[Jon J. Yeager]

"Shawn H" <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:dr8pqs$o0p$1...@us23.unix.fas.harvard.edu...

> In rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe Jon J. Yeager <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>
> : > 3. NEW AVENGERS
> : > Dec 05 New Avengers #14 - 124,300 ( -1.5%)
>
> : If it levels off at 120k, that's damn impressive indeed.
>
> So it's not bleeding readers at an inexorably downward rate as they
> rush to reject Bendis after all?

Apparently not anymore, no. Though it *was* when it was hemorraging 5-10k
readers a month (and even then, I had allowed for the possibility that it
level off at a respectable number; but if it HADN'T...)

Jon

[Junior-kun]

I don't know where I picked up this word, but it does exist. Try the
dictionary.

[MrFlibble]

In article <6NV4IuD7...@esoterica.demon.co.uk>, Paul O'Brien
<pa...@SPAMBLOCK.esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>
> 166. NEW WARRIORS
> Jun 05 New Warriors #1 (of 6) - 20,841
> Jul 05 New Warriors #2 (of 6) - 15,449 (-25.9%)
> Aug 05 New Warriors #3 (of 6) - 13,485 (-12.7%)
> Sep 05 New Warriors #4 (of 6) - 12,484 ( -7.4%)
> Oct 05 n/a
> Nov 05 New Warriors #5 (of 6) - 11,434 ( -8.4%)
> Dec 05 New Warriors #6 (of 6) - 10,875 ( -4.9%)
> 6 mnth (-47.8%)
>
> Just managing to stay above 10K with its final issue. Deserved better,
> really.

To be honest as much as I hated the concept for NW, this series was
quite good. It still wasn't New Warriors and I would have preferred a
cast more suited to the reality show styled stories. I just hope Marvel
give the NW another chance in the future and come to the conclusion
that it was the concept that drove away many fans of the characters.

[Ralf Haring]

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:08:27 +0000, Paul O'Brien
<pa...@SPAMBLOCK.esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>18. FRIENDLY NEIGHBORHOOD SPIDER-MAN

>
>More of "The Other", and since this isn't even the regular creative
>team, it's a bit pointless trying to read much into these figures. Issue
>#2 picks up 8,222 orders for its variant cover, and charts at number
>189.

It's a shame that Wieringo just started drawing a Spider-Man book
again and will probably need to draw him in his new yellow and gold
costume after only a couple issues.

>52. INCREDIBLE HULK

>
>After a HOUSE OF M crossover, HULK returned to its normal levels with
>issue #87, and has just been drifting down since then. Which is a
>little worrying for Marvel, because this is the lead-in to "Planet
>Hulk", and it doesn't seem to be generating much interest at all. If
>you solicit something as "the story arc that will set off the biggest
>Hulk event in Marvel history", you're probably hoping for something a
>bit better than complete indifference.

The Ladronn covers for those issues look spectacular. I'd buy a book
of just those. Otherwise, I just hear "Planet Hulk", some writer, some
artist, "16-parts" and have already tuned it out in favor of something
else.

>57. EXILES

>
>Crossovers aside, EXILES celebrates a whole year of never budging from
>the 32-34K range. Marvel's most consistent title by a mile.

I'd have liked to read this as I was enjoying Bedard's work at
CrossGen a lot. It's good that he's got a solid gig, but I wish he did
other stuff that was more intersting to me. I may check out the World
Tour thing in collected form for nostalgia's sake.

>85. NEW THUNDERBOLTS

Am I blind or is the second collection not available from Amazon? They
list the third one as upcoming, but they don't have a listing for the
second one at all.

>103. MARVEL KNIGHTS 4

>
>Dropping consistently. There's no sign of it levelling out, and if it
>carries on at this rate, it'll be getting down towards 12K by the end of
>the year - way below cancellation level. Do Marvel have any plans to
>turn this book around?

I doubt it. It never had a reason to exist anyway other than to
potentially draw sales from the FF movie publicity.

>113. MARVEL TEAM-UP

>
>Apparently last month's spike really was for the INVINCIBLE crossover,
>because MARVEL TEAM-UP goes straight back to normal levels with its new
>arc. We're now at the 20K mark, and surely we must be starting to test
>the limits of Marvel's tolerance.

I picked up the Invincible issue only.
Clearly the lesson is ... crossover with Walking Dead next.

>132. BOOK OF LOST SOULS
>

>A book which I completely forgot to include over the last two months.
>Oops.
>
>This is an ongoing series by J Michael Straczynski and Colleen Doran.
>It's an Icon book, so the normal Marvel economics won't apply. That
>said, these are not great numbers for the first three issues. 24K is
>okay for a start, but shedding 9,000 readers - more than half the
>audience - in the first two months? Not good.

I preordered the first four issues and stopped after that. It's ok but
pretty unspectacular in the writing department. Colleen Doran's art is
nice, but not as good as on books like Orbiter. I felt no pressing
need to continue buying the single issues.

>152. DRAX THE DESTROYER

>
>Not enormous sales, but considering it's a marginal character in an
>underpromoted miniseries, it could have been an awful lot worse.

It had enough good word of mouth that I'll order the collection.

>166. NEW WARRIORS

>
>Just managing to stay above 10K with its final issue. Deserved better,
>really.

I was very skeptical when I first heard about it. I've changed my mind
since and have ordered the collection.

-Ralf Haring
"The mind must be the harder, the heart the keener,
the spirit the greater, as our strength grows less."
-Byrhtwold, The Battle of Maldon

[hogfat]

"Junior-kun" said:

> Jon J. Yeager wrote:
>
>> Irregardless?
>
> I don't know where I picked up this word, but it does exist. Try the
> dictionary.

"Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from
general acceptance. Use regardless instead."
(http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/irregardless)

--
the X-Database
http://www.fermium.org

[spiritof...@hotmail.com]

First of all, where was the November 2005 chart? I've been doing Google
Groups searches for weeks now and haven't found it.

Second, has anyone other than me noticed that all of December's titles
lost readers over the previous month? NONE of them gained readers.

Paul O'Brien wrote:
> The highest Spider-Man title, and part of the "Other" crossover. Once
> again, the ordering is a little erratic on this storyline. The story is
> running through AMAZING SPIDER-MAN, FRIENDLY NEIGHBORHOOD SPIDER-MAN and
> MARVEL KNIGHTS SPIDER-MAN. They're effectively just one series for the
> duration of the storyline. Yet, once again, AMAZING comfortably
> outsells the other two books. FRIENDLY NEIGHBORHOOD SPIDER-MAN is 7,000
> behind, and MARVEL KNIGHTS SPIDER-MAN is over 10,000 behind.
>
> Which is... odd. It means that a decent-sized chunk of AMAZING's
> readers are sticking with this book and ignoring the rest of the
> crossover. This isn't even creator loyalty, since the creators are
> swapping books. They bought AMAZING in the last two months, even though
> it wasn't by regular writer J M Straczynski. And they didn't buy the
> other two books this month, even though Straczynski was writing them. I
> honestly don't fathom the logic of that. Who are these people who are
> so completist that they buy one third of the crossover simply because
> it's appearing in AMAZING SPIDER-MAN, yet aren't completist enough to
> buy the other two Spider-Man comics for the rest of the plot?

Maybe it means that a decent-sized chunk of AMAZING's readers believe
that 1 monthly Spider-Man title is enough?

> Another Decimation tie-in, and part of "Origins and Endings." Marvel
> seem to have had high hopes for this storyline, but in reality it's just
> doing standard WOLVERINE numbers when seen in the context of the last
> few years. One might question whether these figures really support the
> decision to spin Daniel Way's storyline into a separate ongoing series.

Yeah, it's not like Wolverine needs 2 monthly titles.

> The stop-start schedule of ULTIMATE IRON MAN finally stumbles to a halt.
> The plan is to extend the story into future miniseries, but you have to
> question the wisdom of that. Issue #1 did excellent numbers, and
> frankly, readers have been leaving the title in droves. This is going
> to have to sell in big numbers to the Orson Scott Card fans in trade
> paperback format.

Is that some kind of a reference to something? I don't get what you
mean.

> Ah, this. Yes, after a mere three years, Kevin Smith has finally found
> time to complete a professional commitment he gave in 2002.

Yikes. Why is this guy still allowed to write comic books?

> And no, those aren't misprints - Marvel have changed the length of the
> miniseries twice as it went along.

They gave him an extra issue?!

> You can ignore the 1 year comparison - it's with the final issue of HULK
> & THING: HARD KNOCKS, which was a sales disaster, so it doesn't really
> count.
>
> After a HOUSE OF M crossover, HULK returned to its normal levels with
> issue #87, and has just been drifting down since then. Which is a
> little worrying for Marvel, because this is the lead-in to "Planet
> Hulk", and it doesn't seem to be generating much interest at all. If
> you solicit something as "the story arc that will set off the biggest
> Hulk event in Marvel history", you're probably hoping for something a
> bit better than complete indifference.

Is Peter David still writing this?

If so, then that explains it.

> 67. DAREDEVIL: FATHER

> Nov 05 Father #4 (of 5) - 33,562 (-10.7%)
> Dec 05 Father #5 (of 6) - 30,249 ( -9.9%)
>
> Yes, it's now turned into a six-issue miniseries. The general decline
> continues.

This guy gets another issue, too?!

> Cancelled with issue #100, although we've all heard that before. That
> said, after years of relatively solidity, SPIDER-GIRL has started to
> shed readers over the last year or so. This time, things may be
> different.

I hope not.

> 132. BOOK OF LOST SOULS
> Oct 05 Book of Lost Souls #1 - 24,365
> Nov 05 Book of Lost Souls #2 - 20,002 (-17.9%)
> Dec 05 Book of Lost Souls #3 - 15,308 (-23.5%)
>
> A book which I completely forgot to include over the last two months.
> Oops.

Does that mean that you actually did post the November 2005 sales
chart?

> 163. SPIDER-MAN LOVES MARY JANE
> Dec 05 Spider-Man Loves Mary Jane #1 - 11,171
>
> Ongoing series following on from the MARY JANE and MARY JANE: HOMECOMING
> miniseries. Neither of those books did particularly good business in
> the direct market, so the driving force here must be digest sales -
> which was always the aim. It's not a great debut by direct market
> standards, but it really doesn't matter.

I've been looking for this title in Waldenbooks and Books-A-Million
with no luck.

Mark Moore

[Jason Michael]

<spiritof...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138250053.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> First of all, where was the November 2005 chart? I've been doing Google
> Groups searches for weeks now and haven't found it.

I believe Paul forgot to post it to the group but you can find it at
Comicon:

http://www.comicon.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=004600

Jason

jasonmichael @ canada.com

[spiritof...@hotmail.com]

Thanks! =)

Mark Moore

[Jon J. Yeager]

"hogfat" <hog...@dizzle.orgies> wrote in message
news:CZWBf.42351$7S.4...@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...

> "Junior-kun" said:
>
>> Jon J. Yeager wrote:
>>
>>> Irregardless?
>>
>> I don't know where I picked up this word, but it does exist. Try the
>> dictionary.
>
> "Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way
> from general acceptance. Use regardless instead."
> (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/irregardless)

I like the part where Junior asked /me/ to try the dictionary.

Jon

[selaboc]

hogfat wrote:
> "Junior-kun" said:
>
> > Jon J. Yeager wrote:
> >
> >> Irregardless?
> >
> > I don't know where I picked up this word, but it does exist. Try the
> > dictionary.
>
> "Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from
> general acceptance. Use regardless instead."
> (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/irregardless)

However, Junior is correct, the word *exists*. Here's a fuller quote
from your link:

"The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such
word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in
speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its

[Aaron *Brother Head* Moss]

"Jon J. Yeager" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:43d7c745$0$45131$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...

> Marvel should have taken people's interest in Sentry a little less for
> granted. He's an insignificant character in the greater scheme of things,
> and it's not unlikely he will end up fading away the same way he did the
> first time he was introduced all those decades ago.

Do you realize that Sentry was only introduced less than a decade ago?
(Unless you were making a joke that I missed (which might have happened))

>
> Plus, that is one god-awful looking costume.

I agree with you on this.

Has anyone actually read this title and is it any good? (Waiting for trade
myself (if I do pick it up)).

--
Rev. Aaron *Brother Head* Moss
aka Minister Moss
TheBr...@brotherhead.com
**************************************
Visit my website at:
http://www.brotherhead.com
**************************************
Remember, you can't spell Manslaughter
without laughter!
***************************************

[Marc-Oliver Frisch]

Ralf Haring wrote:

: The Ladronn covers for those issues look spectacular. I'd buy a book

: of just those. Otherwise, I just hear "Planet Hulk", some writer, some
: artist, "16-parts" and have already tuned it out in favor of something
: else.

I doubt the notion that it takes place on another planet will win too many
people over, either, given that crossovers seem to be all the rage again.

: I preordered the first four issues and stopped after that. It's ok but

: pretty unspectacular in the writing department.

It does that to you, apparently. It certainly LOOKS beautiful, but, god, I
wonder what the point is meant to be, beyond "It's nice to be nice."

I'd like to see more over-the-top stuff like DREAM POLICE from Straczysnki.
He's much more interesting when he does stories and ideas, instead of sermons.

--
Marc-Oliver Frisch
POPP'D! >> http://poppd.blogspot.com
COMIKADO << http://comikado.blogspot.com
SUPERCRITICAL >> http://supercritic.blogspot.com

Down, in barrels!

--
[This is a Usenet message, posted to the rec.arts.comics.* groups.]

[Paul O'Brien]

In message <1138208589.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Sean
Walsh <sean...@gmail.com> writes

>
>Plus I'm getting this feeling - looking at the blah numbers from JMS's
>FF run, mainly - that the FF really have failed at capturing any sort
>of "love" from outside the comics world (via the movie) and that's
>starting to spread around the comics world itself.

I wouldn't expect to see interest from the wider public reflected in
higher direct market sales. They'll buy from bookstores or newsagents
more than direct market retailers.

[Paul O'Brien]

In message <43d7c745$0$45131$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>,
Jon J. Yeager <n...@spam.com> writes

>People bought Sentry #1 because of New Avengers, and because Sentry kept
>being touted as Marvel's new Superman. But New Avengers hasn't done a blamed
>thing with him since his introduction.

That's a good point. You're probably right that the character's
disappearance from NEW AVENGERS has done him no good, and they've lost
the momentum that storyline should have had.

>Have you read the latest issue of Hulk?

Yes. It sucks.

>In the end, I took a peek at the Hulk book for the first time in a decade
>and I'm never going back. Who's writing this again?

Daniel Way, whose stories are frequently glacial in pace. In fairness,
though, he's only writing the lead-in to Planet Hulk. The actual story
is written by Greg Pak, who's rather better. (Although it's obvious
from Pak's interviews that this is an editorially mandated storyline
he's been asked to write.)

>They dropped the ball with vol.3, dropped it again by giving the Howling
>Commandos the preview space that should have gone to vol.4 #1, dropped it
>one more time with an unnecessary reboot, and again by celebrating issue
>#100 two issues after #1 (just 13 issues after the previous #1).

The reboot helped sales and was probably necessary. Failing to hype it,
and squandering promotional efforts on the hopeless HOWLING COMMANDOS,
was the cock-up.

>Can anyone argue against the notion that if this were any other field of
>industry but comics, someone would have lost his job over this?

Bizarrely, HOWLING COMMANDOS must be the result of multiple failures.
Not only did the creators fuck up on every level, but the editor failed
to spot or fix the problems, the editor-in-chief failed to put a halt to
the book, and Marvel as a whole somehow came to the conclusion that this
was a comic deserving of hype. It's truly astonishing to contemplate
how so many people could miss the point so badly.

[Paul O'Brien]

In message <j5egt1d316tvuqd26...@4ax.com>, Ralf Haring
<har...@SPAMBLOCK.preypacer.com> writes

>
>I doubt it. It never had a reason to exist anyway other than to
>potentially draw sales from the FF movie publicity.

That wasn't the reason either. MARVEL KNIGHTS 4 was the result of a
horrible internal fuck-up where Bill Jemas commissioned the ludicrous
"Fantastic Four lose all their money and go street level" storyline,
Mark Waid quit, Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa was hired to write it, and the
backlash was so enormous that they hired Waid back straight away. But
they'd already commissioned Aguirre-Sacasa's story so they ran it
anyway. Even though it made no sense running alongside the parent book.

It's been a disaster since day one and I'm amazed they haven't quietly
pulled the plug on it before now.

[Paul O'Brien]

In message <Xns97569DDFAE81...@207.217.125.201>, Billy
Bissette <bai...@coastalnet.com> writes

>
> Well, Kevin Smith has been changing the story as he went along,
>anyway. Considering it started with the death of a friend of Felicia,
>who was later forgotten.

The continuity references also change between issues, meaning that the
series now takes place simultaneously now and five years ago. Well
done, Kevin!

[Paul O'Brien]

In message <1138250053.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
spiritof...@hotmail.com writes

>First of all, where was the November 2005 chart? I've been doing Google
>Groups searches for weeks now and haven't found it.

Frankly, the Pulse sat on the November column for so long before posting
it that I'd completely forgotten about it and never got around to
posting it here.

[Junior-kun]

If you don't understand the words I'm using, that's always your best
option. If you hadn't been satisfied with two sentences out of
context, you might have scene that it's perfectly acceptable in
informal speech.

[David Lawrence Levy]

In rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe Junior-kun <junio...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you don't understand the words I'm using, that's always your best
> option. If you hadn't been satisfied with two sentences out of
> context, you might have scene that it's perfectly acceptable in
> informal speech.

He might even have seen it, too.

David

[Jon J. Yeager]

"Junior-kun" <junio...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1138307788.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

No offense, but "Irregardless" is as much a word as "Unimpossible", so if
you insist on stubbornly continuing its usage, then you've got to expect
people pointing out the error.

Or at the very least, develop thicker skin when they do. Perhaps even learn
to laugh at yourself when the situation warrants it.

If I reacted as you do everytime someone pointed out how inferiorly Canadian
I am, I'd be miserable, EH?

Jon

[Jon J. Yeager]

"David Lawrence Levy" <dl...@ls01.fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:drbcgh$aqg$1...@us23.unix.fas.harvard.edu...

>
> He might even have seen it, too.

Ahhh... so YOU'RE the annoying Dave.

Had you confused with Dhabhid for a while.

Jon

[Jon J. Yeager]

"selaboc" <c64...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138298574.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> However, Junior is correct, the word *exists*.

According to Merriam-Webster.com :

"[Irregardless] is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless
instead."

And :

"...the most frequently repeated remark about it is that 'there is no such
word.'"

As such, the freaking dictionary itself states that :

1) The word is not generally accepted.
2) You should use 'regardless' instead.
3) It even warns you that people will tell you "there is no such word" if
you elect to use it anyway.

Whether it's a word or not, I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that anyone
stubbornly insisting on using it in this context is kinda asking for the
thread we now have here, no?

Jon

[Jon J. Yeager]

"Aaron *Brother Head* Moss" <thebr...@brotherhead.com> wrote in message
news:tPqdnd_aC7l3gETe...@pghconnect.com...

>
> "Jon J. Yeager" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:43d7c745$0$45131$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>> Marvel should have taken people's interest in Sentry a little less for
>> granted. He's an insignificant character in the greater scheme of things,
>> and it's not unlikely he will end up fading away the same way he did the
>> first time he was introduced all those decades ago.
>
> Do you realize that Sentry was only introduced less than a decade ago?
> (Unless you were making a joke that I missed (which might have happened))

My mistake, I meant to write "created", not "introduced". The in-joke being
that this was supposed to be somekind of long-lost Stan Lee creation (which,
I know, it wasn't).

Jon

[Billy Bissette]

"Jon J. Yeager" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> "selaboc" <c64...@hotmail.com> wrote...

> 1) The word is not generally accepted.
> 2) You should use 'regardless' instead.
> 3) It even warns you that people will tell you "there is no such word"
> if you elect to use it anyway.

I lost points on an English paper once because the teacher said the
word didn't exist. Proving it to be in the dictionary didn't change
her opinion, as she then claimed it wasn't in her dictionary. She
never revealed what her dictionary was.

Note that she was not objecting to it being an obscure or little
used word, she was adamant that it did not exist.

> Whether it's a word or not, I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that
> anyone stubbornly insisting on using it in this context is kinda
> asking for the thread we now have here, no?

It is a legitimate word. If it weren't for people like English
teachers that blindly insist that the word doesn't even exist, it
*might* be a little more accepted.

People do know what the word means, even those who claim it isn't
a word.

It does get used.

Kind of funny that people try to stomp a word out of usage,
considering the fluidity of the English language means that
non-legitimate words and incorrect definitions eventually become
accepted and approved.

[Billy Bissette]

Paul O'Brien <pa...@SPAMBLOCK.esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:I100WSCy...@esoterica.demon.co.uk:

> Bizarrely, HOWLING COMMANDOS must be the result of multiple failures.
> Not only did the creators fuck up on every level, but the editor
> failed to spot or fix the problems, the editor-in-chief failed to put
> a halt to the book, and Marvel as a whole somehow came to the
> conclusion that this was a comic deserving of hype. It's truly
> astonishing to contemplate how so many people could miss the point so
> badly.

I think Marvel came to the conclusion that it was a comic deserving of
hype because they realized it *was* a train wreck. I think they pushed
it so hard because they knew it was a complete and utter failure on
every level.

[Jon J. Yeager]

"Billy Bissette" <bai...@coastalnet.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9757B216376B...@207.217.125.201...

> "Jon J. Yeager" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>> Whether it's a word or not, I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that
>> anyone stubbornly insisting on using it in this context is kinda
>> asking for the thread we now have here, no?
>
> It is a legitimate word. If it weren't for people like English
> teachers that blindly insist that the word doesn't even exist, it
> *might* be a little more accepted.

That's like saying "if it wasn't for those damn English teachers blindly
insisting that Unimpossible does not exist as a word, it *might* be a little
more accepted."

Yes, it MIGHT. But why in the blue freaking hell would you WANT it to? It's
a mistake. An aberration which you are insisting on glorifying for reasons
that escape me.

The word is "regardless". Teachers who enforce this should be given a medal,
not mocked.

> People do know what the word means, even those who claim it isn't
> a word.

so y dont we all just rite everyting foneticaly? and hoo needz capital
leters anyway? peeple no wat we meen without their use, rite?

> It does get used.

So do nuclear bombs. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to put a stop to
it.

> Kind of funny that people try to stomp a word out of usage,
> considering the fluidity of the English language means that
> non-legitimate words and incorrect definitions eventually become
> accepted and approved.

I now understand the mystery of George W. Bush.

No wonder you guys re-elected him. Maybe you can elect Kate Beckinsale next?
She's cute!

Jon

[Junior-kun]

Jon J. Yeager wrote:
> "Billy Bissette" <bai...@coastalnet.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9757B216376B...@207.217.125.201...
> > "Jon J. Yeager" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Whether it's a word or not, I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that
> >> anyone stubbornly insisting on using it in this context is kinda
> >> asking for the thread we now have here, no?
> >
> > It is a legitimate word. If it weren't for people like English
> > teachers that blindly insist that the word doesn't even exist, it
> > *might* be a little more accepted.
>
> That's like saying "if it wasn't for those damn English teachers blindly
> insisting that Unimpossible does not exist as a word, it *might* be a little
> more accepted."

I know your just picking a fight for it's own sake, however:

type in irregardless in google, you get 482,000 search results and a
dictionary link. Not bad. Furthermore, if you actually read
dictionary.com, you'd see:

"In the last twenty-five years, irregardless has become a common entry
in dictionaries and usage reference books. It appears in a wide range
of dictionaries including: Webster's Third New International
Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged (1981),[4] The Barnhart
Dictionary of Etymology (1988), The American Heritage Dictionary
(Second College Edition, 1991),[5] Microsoft Encarta College Dictionary
(2001), and Webster's New World College Dictionary (Fourth Edition,
2004).[6]

"Irregardless seems to be moving slowly in the direction of
standardization. It has gone from nonexistence in the 1910 publication
of Etymological Dictionary of the English Language,[7] to being a
normality in modern dictionary publications, and it frequently occurs
in edited professional prose. The fact that its listing as a "humorous
usage" has practically disappeared today supplies further evidence in
favor of acceptance.""

[Jon J. Yeager]

"Junior-kun" <junio...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1138319247....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

> Jon J. Yeager wrote:
>> "Billy Bissette" <bai...@coastalnet.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9757B216376B...@207.217.125.201...
>> > "Jon J. Yeager" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Whether it's a word or not, I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that
>> >> anyone stubbornly insisting on using it in this context is kinda
>> >> asking for the thread we now have here, no?
>> >
>> > It is a legitimate word. If it weren't for people like English
>> > teachers that blindly insist that the word doesn't even exist, it
>> > *might* be a little more accepted.
>>
>> That's like saying "if it wasn't for those damn English teachers blindly
>> insisting that Unimpossible does not exist as a word, it *might* be a
>> little
>> more accepted."
>
> I know your just picking a fight for it's own sake, however :

However what? The fact that you'd continue the post after writing that says
more about you than it does me. Don't think you're fooling anyone but
yourself, there.

Your usual trolling nonsense snipped, my response remains the same : "The
word is 'Regardless'. 'Irregardless' is an error." A commonly made one by
the uneducated, but an error nonetheless.

Need it dumbed down further? Fine, let's talk in words you actually CAN
understand : Stop being a cunt for just 2 seconds and just look at the
fucking word like you actually have more than a Grade 6 education :
Regardless means "without regard for". "Irregardless", if it was actually a
word and not an error commonly-accepted by the inept, would mean the
opposite. It would mean "with much regard for".

That you idiots actually got the word in a couple of dictionaries explaining
what an error it is and stubbornly insist on perpetuating its usage says all
we need to know about your kind, and how much you value flaming over simple
logic and reason.

Jon

[Billy Bissette]

"Jon J. Yeager" <n...@spam.com> wrote:

> "Billy Bissette" <bai...@coastalnet.com> wrote:

> The word is "regardless". Teachers who enforce this should be given a
> medal, not mocked.

They should be given a medal for either not knowing the subject they
are teaching, or for deceiving the students with incorrect information?

Mind that there might be a decent percentage of US English teachers
that don't have enough of the basic knowledge to even be teaching...

>> It does get used.
>
> So do nuclear bombs. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to put a stop
> to it.

Because using a legitimate and recognized word (and without even the
negative meanings of certain words, before someone diverts the topic in
that direction) is akin to nuclear destruction...

>> Kind of funny that people try to stomp a word out of usage,
>> considering the fluidity of the English language means that
>> non-legitimate words and incorrect definitions eventually become
>> accepted and approved.
>
> I now understand the mystery of George W. Bush.
>
> No wonder you guys re-elected him. Maybe you can elect Kate Beckinsale
> next? She's cute!

Some would take the implied insult of voting for Bush as similar to
directly calling a person mentally retarded.

As for why he was re-elected, that is a different issue. I could
spin an explanation of it into a defense for the use of "irregardless,"
just as one could do the same against the word. Not that you really
took either path.

[Daibhid Ceanaideach]

Also Sprach Billy Bissette:

> "Jon J. Yeager" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>> "Billy Bissette" <bai...@coastalnet.com> wrote:
>
>> The word is "regardless". Teachers who enforce this should
>> be given a medal, not mocked.
>
> They should be given a medal for either not knowing the
> subject they
> are teaching, or for deceiving the students with incorrect
> information?

I was intending to post in support of the word's use, but only
because I support the use of made-up, jokey words in Usenet
posts. However, now that people are claiming "irregardless" as
a proper word, rather than a humourous malapropism for
"regardless" (come to think of it, is malapropism the right
word there, or does that only apply if it *is* a word, but the
wrong one), I'm tending towards Jon's side.

As far as I'm concerned "irregardless" is no more a proper
word than "misunderestimate" (see, George W. *is* relevent to
the discussion after all 8-)!)

--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
"You stand as this world's champion?"
"I've no idea who I am, but you've just summed me up."

[Junior-kun]

Jon J. Yeager wrote:

>
> Your usual trolling nonsense snipped, my response remains the same : "The
> word is 'Regardless'. 'Irregardless' is an error." A commonly made one by
> the uneducated, but an error nonetheless.

And my response remains the same. It's a valid, recognised word, that
is perfectly reasonable to use, in the very least, in informal writing,
and is on the road to becoming a word which is valid in formal writing
as well. (Personally, I like the sound of it, it has more punch than
regardless; you may consider me one of the words sponsors)

[Paul O'Brien]

In message <Xns9757B216376B...@207.217.125.201>, Billy
Bissette <bai...@coastalnet.com> writes
>

> Note that she was not objecting to it being an obscure or little used
>word, she was adamant that it did not exist.

It's a word that's currently in the state of being a common error which
is transmuting into a legitimate alternative definition. It's in such
common (mis)use that it's faintly absurd to say that it doesn't exist as
part of the language.

Having said that, it certainly doesn't belong in an English paper, since
the appropriate tone for those is formal written English, which demands
a stricter level of correctness than spoken language.

[selaboc]

Jon J. Yeager wrote:
> "selaboc" <c64...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1138298574.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > However, Junior is correct, the word *exists*.
>
> According to Merriam-Webster.com :
>
> "[Irregardless] is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless
> instead."
>
> And :
>
> "...the most frequently repeated remark about it is that 'there is no such
> word.'"
>
> As such, the freaking dictionary itself states that :
>
> 1) The word is not generally accepted.
> 2) You should use 'regardless' instead.
> 3) It even warns you that people will tell you "there is no such word" if
> you elect to use it anyway.

Jon, your selective reading ability is astounding. You managed to quote
everything from that dictionary entry except for the following line
"There is such a word, however." In case you missed it and to phrase
it the same way you did: the freaking dictionary itself states that:
There is such a word.

[Robert Wiacek]

"Jon J. Yeager" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:43d7c745$0$45131$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...

>> 49. SENTRY
>> Sep 05 Sentry #1 (of 8) - 93,021
>> Oct 05 Sentry #2 (of 8) - 53,384 (-42.6%)
>> Nov 05 Sentry #3 (of 8) - 47,903 (-10.3%)
>> Dec 05 Sentry #4 (of 8) - 41,901 (-12.5%)
>>
>> Dropping rather too quickly for comfort. It shouldn't be shedding over
>> 10% an issue by this point.

>
> People bought Sentry #1 because of New Avengers, and because Sentry kept
> being touted as Marvel's new Superman. But New Avengers hasn't done a

> blamed thing with him since his introduction. The public likely felt --
> with good reason -- that they've been had, once again, and are quickly
> jumping off the bandwagon.

The funny thing is that I found Ares to be more interesting as a character
after one single issue of his mini-series than all of what's been given to
Sentry.

> Marvel has really dropped the ball with this character after such a
> promising introduction during Breakout. I almost believed they could pull
> it off when I saw Sentry rip Carnage in two. Since then, however, Both
> Bendis and Quesada have been spread too thin. Jenkins alone cannot turn
> Sentry into another Superman.

I don't think it a question of Bendis being spread too thin, but rather his
inability/disinterest in writing uber-powered characters. Plain and simple,
Sentry does not fit with the rest of the New Avengers line-up. Hell, his
power level does not fit with the Marvel Universe.

> Marvel should have taken people's interest in Sentry a little less for
> granted. He's an insignificant character in the greater scheme of things,
> and it's not unlikely he will end up fading away the same way he did the
> first time he was introduced all those decades ago.

On the one hand, Marvel get crap for having too many Wolverine/Spider-Man
books. On the otherhand, they get crap for pushing other characters in the
limelight. It's like they can't win.

To be honest, I like the fact they are trying to push other characters like
Sentry, Spider-Woman, Ms. Marvel, and Ares. Diversity is a good thing.

As long as everyone remembers that Wolverine and Spider-Man are the top 2
characters of Marvel ;-)

Rob

[Robert Wiacek]

"Jon J. Yeager" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:43d95778$0$45117$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...

> "Billy Bissette" <bai...@coastalnet.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9757B216376B...@207.217.125.201...
>> "Jon J. Yeager" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Whether it's a word or not, I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that
>>> anyone stubbornly insisting on using it in this context is kinda
>>> asking for the thread we now have here, no?
>>
>> It is a legitimate word. If it weren't for people like English
>> teachers that blindly insist that the word doesn't even exist, it
>> *might* be a little more accepted.
>
> That's like saying "if it wasn't for those damn English teachers blindly
> insisting that Unimpossible does not exist as a word, it *might* be a
> little more accepted."

That's comparing apples to oranges and you know it. I have a "Webster's New
World Dictionary of the American Language" that is from the early 70's and
it does have the word "irregardless," while "unimpossible" is nowhere to be
found.

Would I use "irregardless" over "regardless"? Most cases, no. But then I
think the greater crime is using "inflammable" instead of the plain and
direct "flammable." Very important to a chemist like me ;-)

> Yes, it MIGHT. But why in the blue freaking hell would you WANT it to?
> It's a mistake. An aberration which you are insisting on glorifying for
> reasons that escape me.

Sort of like the superfluous "u" that you Canucks can't help adding to words
like color, honor, etc...,

;-)

> The word is "regardless". Teachers who enforce this should be given a
> medal, not mocked.

When I was TA'ing back in Texas, I actually had undergrads send me email
messages using net speak. Seriously. Because of that, I'm not going to
quibble over the use of "irregardless" over "regardless"....

>> People do know what the word means, even those who claim it isn't
>> a word.
>
> so y dont we all just rite everyting foneticaly? and hoo needz capital
> leters anyway? peeple no wat we meen without their use, rite?

That's exactly how I recieved some emails! Sad state of affairs in this
world....

>> It does get used.
>
> So do nuclear bombs. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to put a stop to
> it.
>
>> Kind of funny that people try to stomp a word out of usage,
>> considering the fluidity of the English language means that
>> non-legitimate words and incorrect definitions eventually become
>> accepted and approved.
>
> I now understand the mystery of George W. Bush.
>
> No wonder you guys re-elected him. Maybe you can elect Kate Beckinsale
> next? She's cute!

Sorry, she's British.

Rob

[Marc-Oliver Frisch]

Robert Wiacek wrote:

: Would I use "irregardless" over "regardless"? Most cases, no. But then I

: think the greater crime is using "inflammable" instead of the plain and
: direct "flammable." Very important to a chemist like me ;-)

Well, "inflammable" is a somewhat different case; for one thing, it's a broadly
accepted standard term with its own root in Latin. For another, the confusion
caused by the term that you allude to is that the prefix "in-" is NOT a negative
in this case, but is derived from the Latin preposition "in."

"Irregardless," on the other hand, is a 20th century nonsense word with an
entirely useless additional syllable that's there for no reason whatsoever. At
best, it's redundant; at worst, it's a misleading double negative. It certainly
exists as a word, but I doubt it'll ever be accepted as proper formal English.

[Shawn H]

In rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe Paul O'Brien <pa...@spamblock.esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:

: Mark Waid quit, Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa was hired to write it, and the

: backlash was so enormous that they hired Waid back straight away. But
: they'd already commissioned Aguirre-Sacasa's story so they ran it
: anyway. Even though it made no sense running alongside the parent book.

: It's been a disaster since day one and I'm amazed they haven't quietly
: pulled the plug on it before now.

I pulled the plug on reading it long ago.

Shawn H.

[Shawn H]

In rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe Paul O'Brien <pa...@spamblock.esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:

: In message <Xns97569DDFAE81...@207.217.125.201>, Billy

: Bissette <bai...@coastalnet.com> writes
: >
: > Well, Kevin Smith has been changing the story as he went along,
: >anyway. Considering it started with the death of a friend of Felicia,
: >who was later forgotten.

: The continuity references also change between issues, meaning that the
: series now takes place simultaneously now and five years ago. Well
: done, Kevin!

But it's got a hot babe! In black leather! It must be good!

Shawn H.

[Shawn H]

In rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe Billy Bissette <bai...@coastalnet.com> wrote:

: > Bizarrely, HOWLING COMMANDOS must be the result of multiple failures.

: > Not only did the creators fuck up on every level, but the editor
: > failed to spot or fix the problems, the editor-in-chief failed to put
: > a halt to the book, and Marvel as a whole somehow came to the
: > conclusion that this was a comic deserving of hype. It's truly
: > astonishing to contemplate how so many people could miss the point so
: > badly.

: I think Marvel came to the conclusion that it was a comic deserving of
: hype because they realized it *was* a train wreck. I think they pushed
: it so hard because they knew it was a complete and utter failure on
: every level.

What's the phrase for that? Tilting at windmills? Better to bury it
quietly (which they've done to plenty of better titles), and instead
focus all that hype on something slightly worthy.

Shawn H.

[Shawn H]

In rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe spiritof...@hotmail.com wrote:

: > The stop-start schedule of ULTIMATE IRON MAN finally stumbles to a halt.
: > The plan is to extend the story into future miniseries, but you have to
: > question the wisdom of that. Issue #1 did excellent numbers, and
: > frankly, readers have been leaving the title in droves. This is going
: > to have to sell in big numbers to the Orson Scott Card fans in trade
: > paperback format.

: Is that some kind of a reference to something? I don't get what you
: mean.

Scott Card is writing Ultimate Iron Man. Ostensibly.

: > Ah, this. Yes, after a mere three years, Kevin Smith has finally found
: > time to complete a professional commitment he gave in 2002.

: Yikes. Why is this guy still allowed to write comic books?

Hot. babes. in. leather.

And his artists are generally much better than his writing.

Shawn H.

[Billy Bissette]

Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in
news:drdhr1$o3d$4...@us23.unix.fas.harvard.edu:

Well, they seem to think mediocre, average, and not destined for
great sales doesn't deserve hype.

They couldn't have thought Howling Commandos would be a blockbuster
hit.

Therefore there is the chance that Marvel hyped it in an attempt to
turn a trainwreck into a decent seller, rather than watch it die like
most of the low sale no advertisement but often enough better books
they've been releasing.

[Jon J. Yeager]

"Junior-kun" <junio...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1138324012.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

>
> Jon J. Yeager wrote:
>
>> Your usual trolling nonsense snipped, my response remains the same : "The
>> word is 'Regardless'. 'Irregardless' is an error." A commonly made one by
>> the uneducated, but an error nonetheless.
>
> And my response remains the same.

So does mine. How many more times do you need it repeated?

> It's a valid

Invalid.

> recognised word, that is perfectly reasonable to use,

Not according to Merriam-Webster.

> in the very least, in informal writing,
> and is on the road to becoming a word which is valid
> in formal writing as well.

Because the uneducated have perpetuated its usage enough times for today's
kids to adopt it as one.

> (Personally, I like the sound of it, it has more punch than
> regardless; you may consider me one of the words sponsors)

If you only knew how you're actually considered.

Jon

[Jon J. Yeager]

"Ken Arromdee" <arro...@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:drdmms$430$1...@blue.rahul.net...
> In article <43d96583$0$74296$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>,

> Jon J. Yeager <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>Regardless means "without regard for". "Irregardless", if it was actually
>>a
>>word and not an error commonly-accepted by the inept, would mean the
>>opposite. It would mean "with much regard for".
>

> That doesn't follow.

Merriam-Webster.com.

On a sidenote, it's interesting to see how many people will defend the use
of words like Irregardless, Uninflammable and Unpretty just to hear
themselves argue.

Nice language you guys are going to have in 100 years.

Or should I say "nice language you guys are not going to unhave"?

Jon

[Jon J. Yeager]

"Billy Bissette" <bai...@coastalnet.com> wrote in message

news:Xns9757C5F05BF7...@207.217.125.201...

> "Jon J. Yeager" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>> The word is "regardless". Teachers who enforce this should be given a
>> medal, not mocked.
>
> They should be given a medal for either not knowing the subject they
> are teaching, or for deceiving the students with incorrect information?
>
> Mind that there might be a decent percentage of US English teachers
> that don't have enough of the basic knowledge to even be teaching...

By the looks of how many of you are defending the usage of words like
"Irregardless", I fear that is a correct assumption.

Jon

[Jon J. Yeager]

"Daibhid Ceanaideach" <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97586BB4...@130.133.1.4...

>
> I was intending to post in support of the word's use, but only
> because I support the use of made-up, jokey words in Usenet
> posts. However, now that people are claiming "irregardless" as
> a proper word, rather than a humourous malapropism for
> "regardless" (come to think of it, is malapropism the right
> word there, or does that only apply if it *is* a word, but the
> wrong one), I'm tending towards Jon's side.
>
> As far as I'm concerned "irregardless" is no more a proper
> word than "misunderestimate" (see, George W. *is* relevent to
> the discussion after all 8-)!)

Voilà.

That's the thing about fanboys. Even when they technically have a small leg
to stand on, the childhood inferiority complexes prevent them from conceding
a single blasted thing to anyone, anywhere, at any time... always pushing
the issue too far.

Is it in SOME dictionaries? YES. As an aberration and a mistake, which is
mentioned in the definition of the word itself. Why this isn't good enough
and they now want to prove the word is proper English is where the house of
cards, as always, falls apart.

Jon

[Jon J. Yeager]

"Robert Wiacek" <rwi...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:WzrCf.15$tO...@fe05.lga...

> "Jon J. Yeager" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:43d95778$0$45117$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>>

>> Yes, it MIGHT. But why in the blue freaking hell would you WANT it to?
>> It's a mistake. An aberration which you are insisting on glorifying for
>> reasons that escape me.
>
> Sort of like the superfluous "u" that you Canucks can't help adding to
> words like color, honor, etc...,
>
> ;-)

Ah, but you'll notice I disagree with superfluous ANYTHING, which is why
you've never seen me write colour, honour, etc.

(It's also why I don't wear any underwear, but that's another story.)

>> The word is "regardless". Teachers who enforce this should be given a
>> medal, not mocked.
>
> When I was TA'ing back in Texas, I actually had undergrads send me email
> messages using net speak. Seriously. Because of that, I'm not going to
> quibble over the use of "irregardless" over "regardless"....

Two wrongs don't make a right, though, Robert.

>>> People do know what the word means, even those who claim it isn't
>>> a word.
>>
>> so y dont we all just rite everyting foneticaly? and hoo needz capital
>> leters anyway? peeple no wat we meen without their use, rite?
>
> That's exactly how I recieved some emails! Sad state of affairs in this
> world....

See above response.

>> No wonder you guys re-elected him. Maybe you can elect Kate Beckinsale
>> next? She's cute!
>
> Sorry, she's British.

So? She looks American and can adopt the accent. Irregardless kinda looks
and sounds like Regardless, so it's a proper word now. Same difference.

The fact that it's actually a MISTAKE doesn't seem to matter to anyone here.

Jon

[Jon J. Yeager]

"Marc-Oliver Frisch" <Dersc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43uvkfF...@individual.net...

> Robert Wiacek wrote:
>
> : Would I use "irregardless" over "regardless"? Most cases, no. But then I
> : think the greater crime is using "inflammable" instead of the plain and
> : direct "flammable." Very important to a chemist like me ;-)
>
> Well, "inflammable" is a somewhat different case; for one thing, it's a
> broadly
> accepted standard term with its own root in Latin. For another, the
> confusion
> caused by the term that you allude to is that the prefix "in-" is NOT a
> negative
> in this case, but is derived from the Latin preposition "in."
>
> "Irregardless," on the other hand, is a 20th century nonsense word with an
> entirely useless additional syllable that's there for no reason
> whatsoever. At
> best, it's redundant; at worst, it's a misleading double negative. It
> certainly
> exists as a word, but I doubt it'll ever be accepted as proper formal
> English.

I love you.

Jon

[Jon J. Yeager]

"Paul O'Brien" <pa...@SPAMBLOCK.esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:GGdHKwAW...@esoterica.demon.co.uk...

> In message <Xns9757B216376B...@207.217.125.201>, Billy
> Bissette <bai...@coastalnet.com> writes
>>
>> Note that she was not objecting to it being an obscure or little used
>> word, she was adamant that it did not exist.
>
> It's a word that's currently in the state of being a common error which is
> transmuting into a legitimate alternative definition. It's in such common
> (mis)use that it's faintly absurd to say that it doesn't exist as part of
> the language.
>
> Having said that, it certainly doesn't belong in an English paper, since
> the appropriate tone for those is formal written English, which demands a
> stricter level of correctness than spoken language.

Finally, some support on this matter. :)

Jon

[Jon J. Yeager]

"selaboc" <c64...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1138367175.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> Jon, your selective reading ability is astounding. You managed to quote
> everything from that dictionary entry except for the following line
> "There is such a word, however." In case you missed it and to phrase
> it the same way you did: the freaking dictionary itself states that:
> There is such a word.

YOUR selective reading ability is just as astounding. Yes, "Irregardless" is
a word. Technically speaking, so is DKLDJKEK. It's a bunch of letters in
sequential order, which makes it a word.

Does it make it a PROPER word in the English language, or just a mistake
made by the uneducated which has been perpetuated enough times to warrant a
spot in certain dictionaries that go out of their way to specify how the
word is a mistake in their own definitions of it?

I've been claiming the latter. Meanwhile, your side has been using the word
"proper" all too loosely in this debate. Because your kind never knows when
enough is enough. Your kind does not concede. There is simply nothing proper
about the word "irregardless", no matter how many times you three claim the
contrary.

Have you even been reading what your side of this discussion has had to
offer? No offense, but I'll side with Paul O'Brien and Marc-Oliver Frisch
over Junior-kunt and Billy Bissette any day.

Jon

[Jon J. Yeager]

"Robert Wiacek" <rwi...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message

news:SCpCf.8$tG...@fe02.lga...

>
> The funny thing is that I found Ares to be more interesting as a character
> after one single issue of his mini-series than all of what's been given to
> Sentry.

Never heard of Ares until this week. On your recommendation, I might pick up
the #1.

> I don't think it a question of Bendis being spread too thin, but rather
> his inability/disinterest in writing uber-powered characters. Plain and
> simple, Sentry does not fit with the rest of the New Avengers line-up.
> Hell, his power level does not fit with the Marvel Universe.

Fabian is doing a better job with Genis in New Thunderbolts, where the power
level thing has actually been mentioned once or twice.

> On the one hand, Marvel get crap for having too many Wolverine/Spider-Man
> books. On the otherhand, they get crap for pushing other characters in the
> limelight. It's like they can't win.
>
> To be honest, I like the fact they are trying to push other characters
> like Sentry, Spider-Woman, Ms. Marvel, and Ares. Diversity is a good
> thing.

Been saying that from Day 1 myself. I'm just wondering in what way they're
pushing Sentry. And something tells me Ronin will slowly forgotten by the
creators just like Sentry has been.

Is it that Bendis is uncomfortable writing TEAM books where he has to focus
on 7 guys at once, that he prefers street-level drama to uber-power-level
stories, or both?

I'd lean towards both.

> As long as everyone remembers that Wolverine and Spider-Man are
> the top 2 characters of Marvel ;-)

Bastard!

Jon

[selaboc]

Jon J. Yeager wrote:
> "selaboc" <c64...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1138367175.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Jon, your selective reading ability is astounding. You managed to quote
> > everything from that dictionary entry except for the following line
> > "There is such a word, however." In case you missed it and to phrase
> > it the same way you did: the freaking dictionary itself states that:
> > There is such a word.
>
> YOUR selective reading ability is just as astounding.

What have I selectively missed? Junior made a point, that irregardless
is a real word. You refuse to admit that it is (with phrases such as
"Whether it's a word or not", "it's a mistake" etc and starting with
the insults when called on it). So sorry to burst your bubble, but it's
a word (irregardless* of how high or low esteem it is held), suck it up
and admit it without the insulting "technically speaking" nonsense.
It's real, it exists and people actually use it often enough to make it
into dictionaries.

* yeah, I used that word there only becuase you object to it so much,
so sue me.

> Yes, "Irregardless" is
> a word. Technically speaking, so is DKLDJKEK. It's a bunch of letters in
> sequential order, which makes it a word.

One that is NOT used by ANYONE and one that is not in the dictionary.
So hardly what one would call a REAL word with a REAL commonly
understood meaning (which any word needs in order to be a useful
communication tool)

> Does it make it a PROPER word in the English language, or just a mistake
> made by the uneducated which has been perpetuated enough times to warrant a
> spot in certain dictionaries that go out of their way to specify how the
> word is a mistake in their own definitions of it?

It wouldn't be the first word that started out as "a mistake" only to
end up widely enough used to be considered a real word in its own
right.

> I've been claiming the latter. Meanwhile, your side has been using the word
> "proper" all too loosely in this debate.

Please quote where I've EVER used the word "proper" in relation to the
word in question. Because I certainly can't recall ever making such as
statement. In fact, though I haven't checked, I don't think Junior or
Billy ever made such a statement as I recall atleast one of them
admitting that while it's valid for informal writing, it's not yet
accepted in formal writing (though it is on the road to such
acceptance). In fact the ONLY person I see harping about "proper" is
YOU, with is rather moving the goal posts as usenet posts are not
English class writting assignments or articles in technical journals,
so proper doesn't even enter into it except for those too stubborn to
admit that they are railing against a real word with a real commonly
understood meaning that really exists and is really used by real people
in real life. really :)

FYI the only other people I've seen use the word proper in relation to
irregardless in this thread have done so to say "It certainly exists as
a word, but I doubt it'll ever be accepted as proper formal English" as
Marc put it so well.

> Because your kind never knows when
> enough is enough. Your kind does not concede.

Coming from you that is the most ironic statement I've read on usenet
in a long time. Someone seriously needs to look into a mirror.

> There is simply nothing proper
> about the word "irregardless", no matter how many times you three claim the
> contrary.

I've never claimed the contrary. Go on, reread my posts and show me
where I've ever used the word proper in relation to "irregardless".
I'll be awaiting an apology when you can't find even one instance. but
I won't be holding my breathe. All I've *EVER* said about it is "the
word *exists*" which is exactly the same thing the dictionary says
"There is such a word.", something you seem to find hard to accept.
which really says more about you than Junior, Billy, or anyone else.

> No offense, but I'll side with Paul O'Brien and Marc-Oliver Frisch
> over Junior-kunt and Billy Bissette any day.

No offense, but there's your selective reading abilities showing up
again, both Paul and Marc are on my side that it's a real word. Paul
said "it's faintly absurd to say that it doesn't exist as part of the
language" and Marc said "It certainly exists as a word", something you
seem to have a hard time excepting as you've been attacking me for
making that very point.

[Jon J. Yeager]

"selaboc" <c64...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1138392258.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Jon J. Yeager wrote:
>> "selaboc" <c64...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1138367175.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Jon, your selective reading ability is astounding. You managed to quote
>> > everything from that dictionary entry except for the following line
>> > "There is such a word, however." In case you missed it and to phrase
>> > it the same way you did: the freaking dictionary itself states that:
>> > There is such a word.
>>
>> YOUR selective reading ability is just as astounding.
>
> What have I selectively missed? Junior made a point, that irregardless
> is a real word.

Define "real", as even the dictionaries that list the word make it clear
that it's not proper English.

> You refuse to admit that it is.

That's where the selective reading on your part comes in, as I conceded it
was a "word" just like "DLKDLKFEK" is a word -- which is to say it's a bunch
of letters in a sequential order.

But we're not talking about it simply being a word anymore, are we? Now you
inserted the term "real". Others use the term "proper".

Just a bunch of overgrown kids with too much time on their hands trying to
win a verbal fight via semantics. My position has never wavered. It's a
word. So is "epokpfdowiepo".

Neither, however, are proper English.

Go ahead, throw me more semantics that'll allow you to not have to concede
that I had a point all along.

> So sorry to burst your bubble, but it's
> a word (irregardless* of how high or low esteem it is held)

You mean "irregardless" of whether it's considered proper English or not.

> suck it up and admit it without the insulting "technically speaking"
> nonsense.

The only people grasping at "technically speaking" straws in this debate are
you, Junior and Billy.

Meanwhile, Paul, Marc-Oliver and I are arguing that the word, while a word,
simply isn't proper English.

If it's a standstill, then accept it as such and kindly move on with your
life without letting the trauma of not being unanymously accepted as right
get to you too much.

> It's real, it exists and people actually use it often enough to make it
> into dictionaries.

It's a malformation perpetuated by the uneducated that only made it into
dictionaries so said dictionaries could point that fact out to you.

A fact that continues to fly over all of your heads, as you are too busy
ejaculating over yourselves over finding the word in the dictionary in the
first place.

> * yeah, I used that word there only becuase you object to it so much,
> so sue me.

Which just confirms that you are indeed a trolling jackass. No real skin off
my back, however. :)

>> Yes, "Irregardless" is a word. Technically speaking, so
>> is DKLDJKEK. It's a bunch of letters in
>> sequential order, which makes it a word.
>
> One that is NOT used by ANYONE and one that is not in the dictionary.

So what? It's a word, ain't it?

Oh.. so being a word isn't enough now? It's got to be a PROPER word?

Then "irregardless" doesn't count.

Can't have your cake and eat it too, kiddo.

> So hardly what one would call a REAL word with a REAL commonly
> understood meaning (which any word needs in order to be a useful
> communication tool)

REAL commonly understood meaning? I had no idea what it was supposed to
mean. It's not proper English. Those dictionaries you keep quoting have
stated as much. I'm not sure what it'll take for you to concede an inch in
this -- or any other -- debate... but frankly, I've given up hoping.

>> Does it make it a PROPER word in the English language, or just a mistake
>> made by the uneducated which has been perpetuated enough times to warrant
>> a
>> spot in certain dictionaries that go out of their way to specify how the
>> word is a mistake in their own definitions of it?
>
> It wouldn't be the first word that started out as "a mistake" only to
> end up widely enough used to be considered a real word in its own
> right.

And you Americans are proud of this?

Do you CHALLENGE yourselves to establish new plateaus of mediocrity every
day, or what?

> In fact, though I haven't checked, I don't think Junior or

> Billy ever made such a statement as I...

Maybe next time you should try checking before preaching.

> FYI the only other people I've seen use the word proper in relation to
> irregardless in this thread have done so to say "It certainly exists as
> a word, but I doubt it'll ever be accepted as proper formal English" as
> Marc put it so well.

And Marc is right.

>> Because your kind never knows when
>> enough is enough. Your kind does not concede.
>
> Coming from you that is the most ironic statement I've read on usenet
> in a long time. Someone seriously needs to look into a mirror.

Indeed, you do. :) I've conceded numerous things numerous times to numerous
people that I cannot even stomach the sight of, and it's all Googlable.

Come back when you've shown the slightest ability to concede anything to
anyone.

>> There is simply nothing proper
>> about the word "irregardless", no matter how
>> many times you three claim the
>> contrary.
>
> I've never claimed the contrary.

Then we are in agreement, and you are arguing only for the sake of arguing.

>> No offense, but I'll side with Paul O'Brien and Marc-Oliver Frisch
>> over Junior-kunt and Billy Bissette any day.
>
> No offense, but there's your selective reading abilities showing up
> again, both Paul and Marc are on my side that it's a real word.

Then you're on the side of all 3 of us, because it *is* a real word, just
like "EKRJKJTLKTJ" is. It's just not proper English.

Why you can accept the obvious from Marc and not from me speaks more, I
think, of your own biases than any real point you're trying to latch
yourself onto.

Jon

[Paul O'Brien]

In message <drdi08$o3d$5...@us23.unix.fas.harvard.edu>, Shawn H
<shill#@fas.harvard.edu> writes

>
>Scott Card is writing Ultimate Iron Man. Ostensibly.

Are you suggesting that a ghost writer might be involved?

[Shawn H]

In rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe Paul O'Brien <pa...@spamblock.esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:

: In message <drdi08$o3d$5...@us23.unix.fas.harvard.edu>, Shawn H

: <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> writes
: >
: >Scott Card is writing Ultimate Iron Man. Ostensibly.

: Are you suggesting that a ghost writer might be involved?

Oh no, just complaining about the infrequency of his work. The fixation
on genius kids raised in dysfunctional families seems to be pure Card.

Shawn H.

[selaboc]

Jon J. Yeager wrote:
> "selaboc" <c64...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1138392258.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Jon J. Yeager wrote:
> >> "selaboc" <c64...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1138367175.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Jon, your selective reading ability is astounding. You managed to quote
> >> > everything from that dictionary entry except for the following line
> >> > "There is such a word, however." In case you missed it and to phrase
> >> > it the same way you did: the freaking dictionary itself states that:
> >> > There is such a word.
> >>
> >> YOUR selective reading ability is just as astounding.
> >
> > What have I selectively missed? Junior made a point, that irregardless
> > is a real word.
>
> Define "real", as even the dictionaries that list the word make it clear
> that it's not proper English.

And nobody but you is making the arguement that it is "proper" English.
And for that matter Define "proper". "real" is defined as used by
people in every day life, apparently a concept you aren't familiar
with.

>
> > You refuse to admit that it is.
>
> That's where the selective reading on your part comes in, as I conceded it
> was a "word" just like "DLKDLKFEK" is a word -- which is to say it's a bunch
> of letters in a sequential order.

No, that is where your selective reading comes in by snipping out the
parenthetical expansion on what I meant when I said that. the entire
quote from which you snipped was "You refuse to admit that it is (with

phrases such as "Whether it's a word or not", "it's a mistake" etc and

starting with the insults when called on it)." Your selective snipping
has not gone unnoticed. It didn't when you snipped out the key point in
the dictionary definition. And it didn't here.

> But we're not talking about it simply being a word anymore, are we? Now you
> inserted the term "real". Others use the term "proper".

I don't know about you, but I'm talking about the same thing that I was
talking about from the begining. The word if real, it exists, it is
used it has a definite understood meaning. Proper and real are two
different things. something can really exist and still be improper. As
marc put it, "It certainly exists as a word, but I doubt it'll ever be
accepted as proper formal English". It's real, it exists, but that
doesn't make it proper formal English, but as this is not a proper
formal English forum, "properness" is not neccessary.

> Just a bunch of overgrown kids with too much time on their hands trying to
> win a verbal fight via semantics.

Once again, you need to look in the mirror.

> My position has never wavered. It's a
> word. So is "epokpfdowiepo".

And that is where you refuse to admit that it is a real word. with a
real meaning, which is where you run into trouble (just check the
dictionary without selectively reading it). "epokpfdowiepo" is not a
real word. it has no meaning. It is useless in communicating as noone
know what you are talking about when you use it. Irregardless, on the
other hand, being a real existing word, does have meaning that those
listening to or reading the writtings of those using it can understand.

> Neither, however, are proper English.

And you keep tossing out that strawman. Noone here has once argued that
Irregardless is proper English, just that it is a real existing English
word that has a definied meaning that makes it capable of communicating
the users meaning. something your made up words can not claim to
accomplish.

> Go ahead, throw me more semantics that'll allow you to not have to concede
> that I had a point all along.

Your point is that it's not proper English. Congratulation you
conquered a strawman arguement that no one was making. Now will you
concede that Irregardless, while not proper English is a real word with
real meaning unlike your made up words?

> > So sorry to burst your bubble, but it's
> > a word (irregardless* of how high or low esteem it is held)
>
> You mean "irregardless" of whether it's considered proper English or not.

Yes, a word does not have to be proper English to be a word. It just
means that it is not an acceptable word for use in Term papers,
technical journals, classrooms and other forums where people care about
the use proper English. Usenet, it should come as no surprise to you,
is not such a forum.

> > suck it up and admit it without the insulting "technically speaking"
> > nonsense.
>
> The only people grasping at "technically speaking" straws in this debate are
> you, Junior and Billy.

Nope, it's all you.

> Meanwhile, Paul, Marc-Oliver and I are arguing that the word, while a word,
> simply isn't proper English.

And as nobody here has once argued that it is proper English (I noticed
you didn't even attempt to show where I did (choosing to snip that
part) and not only didn't you didn't apologize (I'm not the least bit
surprised) for that oversight, you continue to make that assertion
despite the error being pointed out to you. more selective reading on
your part or just trolling for a fight?

> If it's a standstill, then accept it as such and kindly move on with your
> life without letting the trauma of not being unanymously accepted as right
> get to you too much.

Bwahahahahaha. Man, someone needs to buy you a mirror because you
really need to see yourself badly.

> > It's real, it exists and people actually use it often enough to make it
> > into dictionaries.
>
> It's a malformation perpetuated by the uneducated that only made it into
> dictionaries so said dictionaries could point that fact out to you.

Call it what you will, but it exists and has a meaning that is easily
understood by anyone with the intelligence enough to know how to use a
dictionary, something that no amount of made up words from you can ever
claim to have,

> A fact that continues to fly over all of your heads, as you are too busy
> ejaculating over yourselves over finding the word in the dictionary in the
> first place.

Keep you sexual fantasies to your self, please.

> > * yeah, I used that word there only becuase you object to it so much,
> > so sue me.
>
> Which just confirms that you are indeed a trolling jackass. No real skin off
> my back, however. :)

So speaks Jon "Biggest trolling jackass in racmu" Yeager. Somehow being
called a trolling Jackass by you just doesn't have any sting. If you'd
get yourself a mirror, you might be able to figure out why.

> > One that is NOT used by ANYONE and one that is not in the dictionary.
>
> So what? It's a word, ain't it?

Only in the loosest sense. Have one definition of word is "a speech
sound or series of speech sounds that symbolizes and communicates a
meaning without being divisible into smaller units capable of
independent use " your made up words fail to "communicate a meaning",
which makes it a rather useless word.

> Oh.. so being a word isn't enough now? It's got to be a PROPER word?

No, it's got to be a real word - that is have a meaning that people
seeing or hearing that word can understand. Unless of course you point
it to spout meaningless jibberish.

> Then "irregardless" doesn't count.

Sorry, but check the dictionary, it's a real word.

> Can't have your cake and eat it too, kiddo.

I suggest you learn the difference between a real existsing word and a
proper one. the terms are not interchangable.

> REAL commonly understood meaning? I had no idea what it was supposed to
> mean.

So, then you should do what most normal thinking people would do and
look it up in the dictionary (or google it).

> It's not proper English.

Doesn't matter. It's a real word with a real meaning that you could
easily have learned by looking it up in the dictionary instead of being
an ass about it.

> Those dictionaries you keep quoting have
> stated as much.

They also stated that it was a real word that people *DO* use with a
specific meaning. But again, you seem to selectively missed that part.

> I'm not sure what it'll take for you to concede an inch in
> this -- or any other -- debate... but frankly, I've given up hoping.

There's nothing for me to concede. I made one single point. that
irregardless is a real word. The dictionary says as much. I quoted a
paragraph of the dictionary the included the sentence that says so. You
responded to that post by quoting every element of that dictionary
paragraph that I quoted EXCEPT that one sentence which you selectively
omitted. Since my one point is backed up by the dictionary, is also
made by Paul and Marc (whom you heap praise on), what are you expecting
me to concede. On the other hand, it's frankly obvious that you refuse
to concede an inch in this -- or any other debate (going back as far as
Tony's mustache that I'm aware of) because rather than concede, you
just selectively edit out that which you would otherwise have to
concede and tilt at strawmen rather than deal with the points being
made.

> > It wouldn't be the first word that started out as "a mistake" only to
> > end up widely enough used to be considered a real word in its own
> > right.
>
> And you Americans are proud of this?

such words haven't come just from Americans. It's a worldwide
historical phenomenon. Part of the human condition I expect.

> Do you CHALLENGE yourselves to establish new plateaus of mediocrity every
> day, or what?

more stawmen from Jon.

> > In fact, though I haven't checked, I don't think Junior or
> > Billy ever made such a statement as I...
>
> Maybe next time you should try checking before preaching.

Since you've yet to show that anyone has made such as statement and
from all the posts I HAVE read have shown me that that arguement only
exists as one of your strawmen.

> > FYI the only other people I've seen use the word proper in relation to
> > irregardless in this thread have done so to say "It certainly exists as
> > a word, but I doubt it'll ever be accepted as proper formal English" as
> > Marc put it so well.
>
> And Marc is right.

And I agree with Marc. But you seem not to, as you've yet to concede
that Irregardless is a word without trying to bring "proper" into the
equation.

> >> Because your kind never knows when
> >> enough is enough. Your kind does not concede.
> >
> > Coming from you that is the most ironic statement I've read on usenet
> > in a long time. Someone seriously needs to look into a mirror.
>
> Indeed, you do. :) I've conceded numerous things numerous times to numerous
> people that I cannot even stomach the sight of, and it's all Googlable.
>
> Come back when you've shown the slightest ability to concede anything to
> anyone.

Next time I'm at the store, I'm buying you a mirror. Seriously dude,
you need to take a good long look at yourself.

> > I've never claimed the contrary.
>
> Then we are in agreement, and you are arguing only for the sake of arguing.

No, that would be you. As I pointed out above. I enter this thread on
one point: Irregardless is a word, it exists and I quoted a paragraph
of the dictionary that points that out. You replied to that post by
quoted everying in that paragpragh back to me except the one sentence
that mentions that it is a real word. THAT repsonse to my point is why
we've been argueing.

> >> No offense, but I'll side with Paul O'Brien and Marc-Oliver Frisch
> >> over Junior-kunt and Billy Bissette any day.
> >
> > No offense, but there's your selective reading abilities showing up
> > again, both Paul and Marc are on my side that it's a real word.
>
> Then you're on the side of all 3 of us, because it *is* a real word, just
> like "EKRJKJTLKTJ" is. It's just not proper English.

No, it's NOT like "EKRJKJTLKTJ", becuse it has a meaning that anyone
with half a brain can know just by looking it up in the dictionary.
"EKRJKJTLKTJ" has no meaning, it's not a "real" word in the sense that
it cannot communicate any meaning to anyone.

> Why you can accept the obvious from Marc and not from me speaks more, I
> think, of your own biases than any real point you're trying to latch
> yourself onto.

Because you are not argueing the same thing as Marc. Marc accepts that
irregardless is a real word with real meaning even if it isn't a
"proper" word. You, on the other hand refuse to acknowledge that it's a
word with real meaning with you attempts to equate it to made up
nonsense words. You attempt to say that if it isn't a "proper" word
than it isn't a real word. Since the dictionary, myself, Marc, and Paul
all agree that it is a real word (even if it isn't a "proper" one) it
is you that is the odd man out.

[Jeremy Henderson]

Well, there was a bit of a ruckus about Giffen coming to Marvel, given
that he was outraged by DC's treatment of Blue Beetle and his other
beloved JLA characters (yes, I know the outrage was largely fictional,
but still, it did have people talking). Maybe they were hoping to tap
into the "controversy".

[Tony]

Paul O'Brien wrote:
> In message <1138208589.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Sean
> Walsh <sean...@gmail.com> writes
> >
> >Plus I'm getting this feeling - looking at the blah numbers from JMS's
> >FF run, mainly - that the FF really have failed at capturing any sort
> >of "love" from outside the comics world (via the movie) and that's
> >starting to spread around the comics world itself.
>
> I wouldn't expect to see interest from the wider public reflected in
> higher direct market sales. They'll buy from bookstores or newsagents
> more than direct market retailers.

>
> --
> Paul O'Brien
>
> THE X-AXIS - http://www.thexaxis.com
> ARTICLE 10 - http://www.ninthart.com
> IF DESTROYED - http://ifdestroyed.blogspot.com

--so I'm guessing the figures you report are based on sales from the
direct market? Any idea how comics solds at bookstores do?

Tony

[Tony]

Billy Bissette wrote:
> "Jon J. Yeager" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> > "selaboc" <c64...@hotmail.com> wrote...
>
> > 1) The word is not generally accepted.
> > 2) You should use 'regardless' instead.
> > 3) It even warns you that people will tell you "there is no such word"
> > if you elect to use it anyway.
>
> I lost points on an English paper once because the teacher said the
> word didn't exist. Proving it to be in the dictionary didn't change
> her opinion, as she then claimed it wasn't in her dictionary. She
> never revealed what her dictionary was.

>
> Note that she was not objecting to it being an obscure or little
> used word, she was adamant that it did not exist.
>

> > Whether it's a word or not, I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that
> > anyone stubbornly insisting on using it in this context is kinda
> > asking for the thread we now have here, no?
>
> It is a legitimate word. If it weren't for people like English
> teachers that blindly insist that the word doesn't even exist, it
> *might* be a little more accepted.
>

> People do know what the word means, even those who claim it isn't
> a word.
>

> It does get used.

>
>
> Kind of funny that people try to stomp a word out of usage,
> considering the fluidity of the English language means that
> non-legitimate words and incorrect definitions eventually become
> accepted and approved.

--I know what you mean.
I wonder if there's a list somewhere on the net (and there probably is)
of words that have been created in the last 15 years that have entered
the publics consciousness and into dictionaries...
In any case, I'm pretty sure the people here know what "irregardless"
is intended to mean, so I'm uncertain what this dispute is over.

Tony

[Tony]

Robert Wiacek wrote:
> "Jon J. Yeager" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:43d7c745$0$45131$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>
> >> 49. SENTRY
> >> Sep 05 Sentry #1 (of 8) - 93,021
> >> Oct 05 Sentry #2 (of 8) - 53,384 (-42.6%)
> >> Nov 05 Sentry #3 (of 8) - 47,903 (-10.3%)
> >> Dec 05 Sentry #4 (of 8) - 41,901 (-12.5%)
> >>
> >> Dropping rather too quickly for comfort. It shouldn't be shedding over
> >> 10% an issue by this point.
> >
> > People bought Sentry #1 because of New Avengers, and because Sentry kept
> > being touted as Marvel's new Superman. But New Avengers hasn't done a
> > blamed thing with him since his introduction. The public likely felt --
> > with good reason -- that they've been had, once again, and are quickly
> > jumping off the bandwagon.

>
> The funny thing is that I found Ares to be more interesting as a character
> after one single issue of his mini-series than all of what's been given to
> Sentry.

--I feel somewhat the way you do. But I do feel that there are
elements in the Sentry's character that I like and think could work
well.

>
> > Marvel has really dropped the ball with this character after such a
> > promising introduction during Breakout. I almost believed they could pull
> > it off when I saw Sentry rip Carnage in two. Since then, however, Both
> > Bendis and Quesada have been spread too thin. Jenkins alone cannot turn
> > Sentry into another Superman.

>
> I don't think it a question of Bendis being spread too thin, but rather his
> inability/disinterest in writing uber-powered characters. Plain and simple,
> Sentry does not fit with the rest of the New Avengers line-up. Hell, his
> power level does not fit with the Marvel Universe.
>

--I agree. Perhaps they should do a John Byrne depowering...oh wait,
they'd have to define his powers first.

> > Marvel should have taken people's interest in Sentry a little less for
> > granted. He's an insignificant character in the greater scheme of things,
> > and it's not unlikely he will end up fading away the same way he did the
> > first time he was introduced all those decades ago.

>
> On the one hand, Marvel get crap for having too many Wolverine/Spider-Man
> books. On the otherhand, they get crap for pushing other characters in the
> limelight. It's like they can't win.

--well many times they don't push the "other" characters as well as
they push Wolverine and Spiderman.

> To be honest, I like the fact they are trying to push other characters like
> Sentry, Spider-Woman, Ms. Marvel, and Ares. Diversity is a good thing.

--Me too. I love Spiderwoman and Ms Marvel, and the first issue of
Ares really entertained me.

> As long as everyone remembers that Wolverine and Spider-Man are the top 2
> characters of Marvel ;-)
>

--huh? Who are they?

Tony

[Tony]

Jon J. Yeager wrote:

> Been saying that from Day 1 myself. I'm just wondering in what way they're
> pushing Sentry. And something tells me Ronin will slowly forgotten by the
> creators just like Sentry has been.

--Ronin wasn't even mentioned in the text on the first page of NA 15.
Nor was she present for the unveiling of the team. I'd think a new
member should make some sort of presence in an issue like this.

>
> Is it that Bendis is uncomfortable writing TEAM books where he has to focus
> on 7 guys at once, that he prefers street-level drama to uber-power-level
> stories, or both?
>
> I'd lean towards both.

--well he doesn't seem to have a problem handling a cast of characters
(such as in USM or Powers) where there are only a couple of leads, so I
don't think a team book is *that* much of a stretch (granted I'm not a
writer and it may be more difficult).
I tend to think that he prefers street level drama stories and the
accompanying power levels the characters tend to have. In addition,
most of Bendis' stories don't focus on super powered fisticuffs.
They're largely drama and character driven. That's why I think his
work on Powers is great, but his stuff on New Avengers isn't.

Tony

[Tony]

MrFlibble wrote:
> In article <6NV4IuD7...@esoterica.demon.co.uk>, Paul O'Brien
> <pa...@SPAMBLOCK.esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> > 166. NEW WARRIORS
> > Jun 05 New Warriors #1 (of 6) - 20,841
> > Jul 05 New Warriors #2 (of 6) - 15,449 (-25.9%)
> > Aug 05 New Warriors #3 (of 6) - 13,485 (-12.7%)
> > Sep 05 New Warriors #4 (of 6) - 12,484 ( -7.4%)
> > Oct 05 n/a
> > Nov 05 New Warriors #5 (of 6) - 11,434 ( -8.4%)
> > Dec 05 New Warriors #6 (of 6) - 10,875 ( -4.9%)
> > 6 mnth (-47.8%)
> >
> > Just managing to stay above 10K with its final issue. Deserved better,
> > really.
>
> To be honest as much as I hated the concept for NW, this series was
> quite good. It still wasn't New Warriors and I would have preferred a
> cast more suited to the reality show styled stories. I just hope Marvel
> give the NW another chance in the future and come to the conclusion
> that it was the concept that drove away many fans of the characters.

--that was certainly the case for me. I *might* have picked up the
first issue if the art were different. But a new concept AND hideous
art? Uh uh.

Tony

[Paul O'Brien]

In message <7rllt115qi4q2d6t1...@4ax.com>, Jeremy
Henderson <hel...@tampabay.BABYJESUSHATESSPAM.rr.com> writes

>
>Well, there was a bit of a ruckus about Giffen coming to Marvel, given
>that he was outraged by DC's treatment of Blue Beetle and his other
>beloved JLA characters (yes, I know the outrage was largely fictional,
>but still, it did have people talking).

Er, I don't recall Giffen every complaining about INFINITE CRISIS
(although lots of people assumed he would). In fact, isn't he writing
the upcoming BLUE BEETLE title?

[Paul O'Brien]

In message <1138418584.2...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Tony
<Tony...@aol.com> writes

>
>--so I'm guessing the figures you report are based on sales from the
>direct market?

Yes. These are the Diamond charts.

>Any idea how comics solds at bookstores do?

That information is not publicly available. You'd have to subscribe to
Bookscan, which costs an absolute fortune.

[Robert Wiacek]

"Jon J. Yeager" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message

news:43da63c6$0$45135$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...

> "Robert Wiacek" <rwi...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:WzrCf.15$tO...@fe05.lga...
>> "Jon J. Yeager" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>> news:43d95778$0$45117$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>>>
>>> Yes, it MIGHT. But why in the blue freaking hell would you WANT it to?
>>> It's a mistake. An aberration which you are insisting on glorifying for
>>> reasons that escape me.
>>
>> Sort of like the superfluous "u" that you Canucks can't help adding to
>> words like color, honor, etc...,
>>
>> ;-)
>
> Ah, but you'll notice I disagree with superfluous ANYTHING, which is why
> you've never seen me write colour, honour, etc.

I'm starting to doubt your "Canadian-ness." My first clue was when you
referred yourself as be 6 feet tall, instead of 1.8 meters/metres, awhile
back. And now we have your admitted lack of superfluous "u"'s. I think I
smell a faker in our midst....

Rob

[Shawn H]

In rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe Jeremy Henderson <hel...@tampabay.babyjesushatesspam.rr.com> wrote:

: > They couldn't have thought Howling Commandos would be a blockbuster
: >hit.

: Well, there was a bit of a ruckus about Giffen coming to Marvel, given
: that he was outraged by DC's treatment of Blue Beetle and his other
: beloved JLA characters (yes, I know the outrage was largely fictional,
: but still, it did have people talking). Maybe they were hoping to tap
: into the "controversy".

Or maybe it was a vote of confidence in Keith, who had after all begun at
Marvel long ago?

Shawn H.

[Jon J. Yeager]

"Robert Wiacek" <rwi...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message

news:j_LCf.1665$r74...@fe06.lga...

> "Jon J. Yeager" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:43da63c6$0$45135$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>>

>> Ah, but you'll notice I disagree with superfluous ANYTHING, which is why
>> you've never seen me write colour, honour, etc.
>
> I'm starting to doubt your "Canadian-ness." My first clue was when you
> referred yourself as be 6 feet tall, instead of 1.8 meters/metres, awhile
> back. And now we have your admitted lack of superfluous "u"'s. I think I
> smell a faker in our midst....

LOL! Why would someone fake being Canadian? And not only Canadian, but from
Quebec! I mean geez, that's even less cool than being Canadian alone.

I asked my school teacher as a kid why she was teaching us to write color
and honor with "u"'s, and she couldn't give me an adequate explanation. So I
just never bought into it. Technically, she couldn't punish me for writing
it the American way.

Why ADD letters to a word for no reason? It's like that "Unirregardless"
thing the uneducated from this group are constantly defending just to
express their inner rebel.

Jon

[Jon J. Yeager]

LOL.. ok, whateeeeeeeever.

I have no idea what was in that post... I just saw it was 2,000 lines long,
and you had something to say to every blasted quoted line.

You win. You rule. I'm not even sure what this debate is even about anymore,
but whatever it is, I you're right and you ROCK, selaboc.

Jon

[Jon J. Yeager]

"Tony" <Tony...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1138420735.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

> Jon J. Yeager wrote:
>
>> Been saying that from Day 1 myself. I'm just wondering in what way
>> they're
>> pushing Sentry. And something tells me Ronin will slowly forgotten by the
>> creators just like Sentry has been.
>
> --Ronin wasn't even mentioned in the text on the first page of NA 15.
> Nor was she present for the unveiling of the team. I'd think a new
> member should make some sort of presence in an issue like this.

Ah, but you missed Scott Dubin's GENIUS explanation for this!

Ronin is not a New Avenger, and SHAME ON YOU for assuming otherwise. She's
simply (get this) "their resident Japan specialist."

I shit you not, those are Scott's own very serious words.

Now, what happens when the team has business in London, England? THERE IS NO
RESIDENT BRITISH SPECIALIST ON THE TEAM!

SURELY, I HOPE THAT TIME NEVER COMES, BECAUSE THEY WILL BE DONE FOR!!!!!

Jon
(Once a village idiot, always a village idiot.)

[Daibhid Ceanaideach]

Also Sprach Jon J. Yeager:

> I asked my school teacher as a kid why she was teaching us
> to write color and honor with "u"'s, and she couldn't give
> me an adequate explanation. So I just never bought into it.
> Technically, she couldn't punish me for writing it the
> American way.

Really? Mine could. (I tried to explain that I was using it in
dialogue to represent an American accent, but she didn't see
it.)

> Why ADD letters to a word for no reason? It's like that
> "Unirregardless" thing the uneducated from this group are
> constantly defending just to express their inner rebel.

They're not "added"; they're *supposed* to be there, but the
Americans dropped them. For no reason, much like irregardless.

--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
"Maybe I'm cynical, but if everyone in the world was
as cynical as I am... it'd still be rubbish, wouldn't it?"
-Robin Ince

[Tony]

--c'mon Jon, you *know* that's why Chuck Austen created the female
Captain Britain...

Tony

[Jon J. Yeager]

"Daibhid Ceanaideach" <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9759F181...@130.133.1.4...

> Also Sprach Jon J. Yeager:
>

>> Why ADD letters to a word for no reason? It's like that
>> "Unirregardless" thing the uneducated from this group are
>> constantly defending just to express their inner rebel.
>
> They're not "added"; they're *supposed* to be there, but the
> Americans dropped them. For no reason, much like irregardless.

Don't you mean "unirregardless"?

Jon

[Jon J. Yeager]

"Tony" <Tony...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:1138492415.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Jon J. Yeager wrote:
>> "Tony" <Tony...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1138420735.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> >

>> > --Ronin wasn't even mentioned in the text on the first page of NA 15.
>> > Nor was she present for the unveiling of the team. I'd think a new
>> > member should make some sort of presence in an issue like this.
>>
>> Ah, but you missed Scott Dubin's GENIUS explanation for this!
>>
>> Ronin is not a New Avenger, and SHAME ON YOU for assuming otherwise.
>> She's
>> simply (get this) "their resident Japan specialist."
>>
>> I shit you not, those are Scott's own very serious words.
>>
>> Now, what happens when the team has business in London, England? THERE IS
>> NO
>> RESIDENT BRITISH SPECIALIST ON THE TEAM!
>

> --c'mon Jon, you *know* that's why Chuck Austen created the female
> Captain Britain...

Apparently, what matters is that we got Japan covered.

With Japan covered, the New Avengers were free to inform the public of their
existence.

Jon

[ReGen...@aol.com]

>Bizarrely, HOWLING COMMANDOS must be the result of multiple failures.
>Not only did the creators fuck up on every level, but the editor failed
>to spot or fix the problems, the editor-in-chief failed to put a halt to
>the book, and Marvel as a whole somehow came to the conclusion that this
>was a comic deserving of hype. It's truly astonishing to contemplate
>how so many people could miss the point so badly.

I have to believe that the backup promotion for Holowing Commandos must
have been set down in writing for Giffen's involvement with the book.
Otherwise- hwo the HELL could THOSE pages- the 5 WORST pages in the
awful #1, gotten approved as the preview?

In principal I approve of a creator with clout demanding promotion for
his books. Lord knows Peter David has railed about recieving no
support for his titles from Marvel before, essentialyl telling him to
"go forth and sell them on the strength of the characters, or the
strength of your name." (the strength of the actual comic, backed up
by marketing's promoting it 'this is actualyl good!' is apparently not
a consideration.)

-Derik

[ReGen...@aol.com]

Ralf wrote:
>Paul wrote:
>>52. INCREDIBLE HULK
>
>>After a HOUSE OF M crossover, HULK returned to its normal levels with
>>issue #87, and has just been drifting down since then. Which is a
>>little worrying for Marvel, because this is the lead-in to "Planet
>>Hulk", and it doesn't seem to be generating much interest at all. If
>>you solicit something as "the story arc that will set off the biggest
>>Hulk event in Marvel history", you're probably hoping for something a
>>bit better than complete indifference.
>
>The Ladronn covers for those issues look spectacular. I'd buy a book
>of just those. Otherwise, I just hear "Planet Hulk", some writer, some
>artist, "16-parts" and have already tuned it out in favor of something
>else.

What reason has Marvel given us to care, seriously? They told it was
super-important, that it will change verything... and then it's set on
an alien planet so that nothing it can do can possibly affect the rest
of the MU.
I assume there's some twist hidden in there that will actually proove
more important, which we're NOT being told because it won't come up
until part 8. ...but I really can't be bothered to care for this
'twist signifigance.' The story looks boring, it's 16 parts, i dont'
really liek the Hulk. Even KNOWIGN that the story will end up being
more signifigant then it appears, i cannot bring myself to be
interested.

-Derik

[Christian Smith]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 16:26:54 +0000 (UTC),Shawn H
<shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote

>In rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe Paul O'Brien <pa...@spamblock.esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>: In message <Xns97569DDFAE81...@207.217.125.201>, Billy
>: Bissette <bai...@coastalnet.com> writes
>: >
>: > Well, Kevin Smith has been changing the story as he went along,
>: >anyway. Considering it started with the death of a friend of Felicia,
>: >who was later forgotten.
>
>: The continuity references also change between issues, meaning that the
>: series now takes place simultaneously now and five years ago. Well
>: done, Kevin!
>
>But it's got a hot babe! In black leather! It must be good!

Yeah, cos that theory worked for Catwoman <g>

Christian
--
"There is a land called Passive Aggressiva and you are their queen."
Derek to Addison. Greys Anatomy

[Jeremy Henderson]

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 11:50:26 +0000, Paul O'Brien
<pa...@SPAMBLOCK.esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <7rllt115qi4q2d6t1...@4ax.com>, Jeremy
>Henderson <hel...@tampabay.BABYJESUSHATESSPAM.rr.com> writes
>>
>>Well, there was a bit of a ruckus about Giffen coming to Marvel, given
>>that he was outraged by DC's treatment of Blue Beetle and his other
>>beloved JLA characters (yes, I know the outrage was largely fictional,
>>but still, it did have people talking).
>
>Er, I don't recall Giffen every complaining about INFINITE CRISIS
>(although lots of people assumed he would). In fact, isn't he writing
>the upcoming BLUE BEETLE title?

When asked how he felt about DC's killing of Blue Beetle, his response
was "That's not the way I would have handled it." From his innocuous
response, and the fact that he was suddenly doing Defenders from
Marvel, there were quite a few who deduced that he was jumping ship
from DC and enraged at their handling of characters he loved.

[Shawn H]

In rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe Christian Smith <chri...@jasdigital.com> wrote:

: >: The continuity references also change between issues, meaning that the

: >: series now takes place simultaneously now and five years ago. Well
: >: done, Kevin!
: >
: >But it's got a hot babe! In black leather! It must be good!

: Yeah, cos that theory worked for Catwoman <g>

It did until they changed art styles.

Shawn H.

[YKW '06]

On 28 Jan 2006, the voices tell me Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu>
wrote:

> Or maybe it was a vote of confidence in Keith, who had after all begun
> at Marvel long ago?
>

He was doing All-Star Comics for DC in -1975-; did he actually work for
Marvel even before =that=?

--
------------------- ------------------------------------------------
|| E-mail: ykw2006 ||"The mystery of government is not how Washington||
|| -at-gmail-dot-com ||works but how to make it stop." -- P.J. O'Rourke||
|| ----------- || ------------------------------------ ||
||Replace "-at-" with|| Keeping Usenet Trouble-Free ||
|| "@" to respond. || Since 1998 ||
------------------- ------------------------------------------------

[Robert Wiacek]

"Jon J. Yeager" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:43dbfe44$0$74530$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...

> "Robert Wiacek" <rwi...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:j_LCf.1665$r74...@fe06.lga...
>> "Jon J. Yeager" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>> news:43da63c6$0$45135$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>>>
>>> Ah, but you'll notice I disagree with superfluous ANYTHING, which is why
>>> you've never seen me write colour, honour, etc.
>>
>> I'm starting to doubt your "Canadian-ness." My first clue was when you
>> referred yourself as be 6 feet tall, instead of 1.8 meters/metres, awhile
>> back. And now we have your admitted lack of superfluous "u"'s. I think I
>> smell a faker in our midst....
>
> LOL! Why would someone fake being Canadian? And not only Canadian, but
> from Quebec! I mean geez, that's even less cool than being Canadian alone.

Reminds me why I like buying Coronas in Canada....there's spanish, english
and french on the bottle.

> I asked my school teacher as a kid why she was teaching us to write color
> and honor with "u"'s, and she couldn't give me an adequate explanation. So
> I just never bought into it. Technically, she couldn't punish me for
> writing it the American way.

I just have to say...U-S-A!U-S-A!!

> Why ADD letters to a word for no reason? It's like that "Unirregardless"
> thing the uneducated from this group are constantly defending just to
> express their inner rebel.

To me, it's in the same ballpark as reading a comic-book and then posting
email after email about it on a newsgroup. It's a distraction and a waste of
time, but it's fun.

Rob

[Daibhid Ceanaideach]

Also Sprach Jeremy Henderson:

Earlier than that, when I Can't Believe... was being shelved
for Identity Crisis, he made a mildly sarcastic comment that
the best thing about independent publishing was that there was
nobody saying "You can't use that character, she's being
brutally murdered". He also implied he might not be working
for DC again as a result.

[Ralf Haring]

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 11:50:26 +0000, Paul O'Brien
<pa...@SPAMBLOCK.esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <7rllt115qi4q2d6t1...@4ax.com>, Jeremy
>Henderson <hel...@tampabay.BABYJESUSHATESSPAM.rr.com> writes
>>
>>Well, there was a bit of a ruckus about Giffen coming to Marvel, given
>>that he was outraged by DC's treatment of Blue Beetle and his other
>>beloved JLA characters (yes, I know the outrage was largely fictional,
>>but still, it did have people talking).
>
>Er, I don't recall Giffen every complaining about INFINITE CRISIS
>(although lots of people assumed he would). In fact, isn't he writing
>the upcoming BLUE BEETLE title?

Yeah, and I think that's why he said the "outrage" was largely
fictional. People thought he should be outraged and started being
outraged for him even though he himself never actually seemed to be
all that outraged.

-Ralf Haring
"The mind must be the harder, the heart the keener,
the spirit the greater, as our strength grows less."
-Byrhtwold, The Battle of Maldon

[Shawn H]

In rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe YKW '06 <ykw2006-at-g...@invalid.stuff.here> wrote:
: On 28 Jan 2006, the voices tell me Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu>
: wrote:

: > Or maybe it was a vote of confidence in Keith, who had after all begun
: > at Marvel long ago?
: >

: He was doing All-Star Comics for DC in -1975-; did he actually work for
: Marvel even before =that=?

http://www.twomorrows.com/kirby/articles/29giffen.html

Indeed, he did, as he discusses pretty candidly here. I think his
Defenders stuff predates his work on All-Star and LSH.

Shawn H.

[YKW '06]

On 29 Jan 2006, the voices tell me Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu>
wrote:

> In rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe YKW '06
> <ykw2006-at-g...@invalid.stuff.here> wrote:
>: On 28 Jan 2006, the voices tell me Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu>
>: wrote:
>
>
>: > Or maybe it was a vote of confidence in Keith, who had after all
>: > begun at Marvel long ago?
>: >
>
>: He was doing All-Star Comics for DC in -1975-; did he actually work
>: for Marvel even before =that=?
>
> http://www.twomorrows.com/kirby/articles/29giffen.html
>
> Indeed, he did, as he discusses pretty candidly here. I think his
> Defenders stuff predates his work on All-Star and LSH.
>
> Shawn H.
>
>

Cool. All the Giffen interviews I'd read before go into greater detail
about the early DC period than anything else pre-Doc-Fate, so I'd pretty
much thought his early Marvel stuff came after his troubles with DC left
him w/o regular work.

Great interview, btw. Thx for the heads-up.

[Nathan P. Mahney]

"Robert Wiacek" <rwi...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message

news:j_LCf.1665$r74...@fe06.lga...

>
> "Jon J. Yeager" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:43da63c6$0$45135$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
> > "Robert Wiacek" <rwi...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> > news:WzrCf.15$tO...@fe05.lga...
> >> "Jon J. Yeager" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
> >> news:43d95778$0$45117$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
> >>>
> >>> Yes, it MIGHT. But why in the blue freaking hell would you WANT it to?
> >>> It's a mistake. An aberration which you are insisting on glorifying
for
> >>> reasons that escape me.
> >>
> >> Sort of like the superfluous "u" that you Canucks can't help adding to
> >> words like color, honor, etc...,
> >>
> >> ;-)
> >
> > Ah, but you'll notice I disagree with superfluous ANYTHING, which is why
> > you've never seen me write colour, honour, etc.
>
> I'm starting to doubt your "Canadian-ness." My first clue was when you
> referred yourself as be 6 feet tall, instead of 1.8 meters/metres, awhile
> back.

I wouldn't take that as meaning anything. I'm Australian, we use the
decimal system, and I still measure height in feet because I have only the
vaguest sense of how much 1.8 metres is (incidentally, I now discover that
it's a bit shorter than me).

--
- Nathan P. Mahney -

THE MAHNEY PIT -- http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney
NERDBLOG -- http://www.livejournal.com/users/nathanpmahney

[Tony]

--16 parts?
I thought Planet Hulk was set to run from #92-#100.

Tony

[Tony]

--I think a lot of people *assumed* Giffen was mad at the handling of
those characters and was bitter at DC. I guess he threw them {the
readers} for a loop when he accepted the writing gig for the new Blue
Beetle book as well as working on 52...

Tony

[Shawn H]

In rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe YKW '06 <ykw2006-at-g...@invalid.stuff.here> wrote:

: On 29 Jan 2006, the voices tell me Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu>
: wrote:

: > In rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe YKW '06
: > <ykw2006-at-g...@invalid.stuff.here> wrote:
: >: On 28 Jan 2006, the voices tell me Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu>
: >: wrote:
: >
: >
: >: > Or maybe it was a vote of confidence in Keith, who had after all
: >: > begun at Marvel long ago?
: >: >
: >
: >: He was doing All-Star Comics for DC in -1975-; did he actually work
: >: for Marvel even before =that=?
: >
: > http://www.twomorrows.com/kirby/articles/29giffen.html
: >
: > Indeed, he did, as he discusses pretty candidly here. I think his
: > Defenders stuff predates his work on All-Star and LSH.

: Cool. All the Giffen interviews I'd read before go into greater detail

: about the early DC period than anything else pre-Doc-Fate, so I'd pretty
: much thought his early Marvel stuff came after his troubles with DC left
: him w/o regular work.

: Great interview, btw. Thx for the heads-up.

You're welcome. TwoMorrows are really great people, all around.
Everything they do shows a deep love for comics creators.

Except for perhaps Todd McFarlane, hee hee, to judge from their
publication Kimota! (about the Miracleman imbroglio).

Shawn H.

[Hunt]

There are several approaches to dictionary-writing. One is
prescriptive--it tells you what words are proper and improper, and
tries to hold the line on proper usage. Another approach is
descriptive--it accepts that the language changes, and simply describes
how words are typically used. The American Heritage Dictionary is (as
I recall) an example of this. A "mistake" in word usage stops being a
"mistake" when it reaches a certain critical mass of usage. I don't
know if 'irregardless" is there just yet. An example that has made it,
in my opinion, is the use of "hopefully" is sentences like, "Hopefully,
it will rain tomorrow." Split infinitives, another taboo, don't really
sound wrong to most people now (as in "to boldly go"). Another change
that seems inevitable is the use of "their" as a singular third-person
pronoun when gender is unclear, as in "Everyone must turn in their
homework now." Unlike France, the United States does not have an
authority that guards the purity of the language, and therefore these
changes occur gradually and simply become part of the language.
Eventually, academic types simply accept the change.
So it's a matter of opinion whether somebody who points out a "mistake"
such as the use of "irregardless" is a brave defender of proper usage,
or just a jerk.