The myth of the jumping-on point.

Over a week ago, Jonathan Hickman and Tom Brevoort talked about what constitutes a good jumping on point for a series.  Issue #24 of Hickman’s “Avengers” was cited as such, given the push it has received as being part of the “All-New Marvel NOW!” initiative.  Hickman thought that it was a terrible example of a jumping on point, stating that he didn’t intend it as such and that he’s never written issue twenty-something of anything with the intent of having a new reader start from there given how he plots his stories.  Brevoort disagreed, stating that issue contained a complete story, introduced a new character, and takes stock of things in the wake of “Infinity” before moving forward.

With all due respect to Brevoort, I agree with Hickman completely.  In fact, I’m willing to take it a step further and say that issue twenty-something of ANY title makes for a poor jumping on point.  Unless a new writer is coming onboard.  These days, that’s the only thing that makes a difference.  At least, that’s how it is for me.

On one hand I think I’ve got the kind of personality that makes editors like Brevoort sell the idea of something like “Avengers #24” being a good jumping on point.  I could go pick up the title later this month and read it, and maybe even enjoy what was offered there.  However, the thought of what had come before would constantly drive me nuts.  I’d obsess over it and wonder what details I’d be missing out on by not having read the previous twenty-three issues until I couldn’t take it anymore and went out and bought the issues I didn’t have.

So that’s the real story behind a “good jumping on point” when people involved with a title try to get you onboard in the middle of a run.  They’re trying to sell you the whole thing by catching you in the middle of things and hoping that you’ll find it so impressive that you’ll go out and buy whatever you were missing.  I’m not angry or even annoyed at these people for trying something like this, they want to sell their series and this is just one way to do it.

Of course, Hickman also makes another point in the interview as he notes that with everything being collected in trades and available on digital it’s easier than ever to get caught up on something.  This, as they say in the modern parlance, is how I like to roll.  If something like “Superior Spider-Man” or Hickman’s own “Fantastic Four” starts getting good buzz and momentum, to the point where I feel like I’m missing out on something, I’ll just grab the existing collected editions and start from there.  It doesn’t matter if there’s a good jumping on point later on down the line, I want to get in on the ground floor and read these things in the order that they were serialized.

That said, I will concede that when used properly a new #1 issue can also serve this purpose and really broaden a title’s audience.  “Runaways” by Brian Vaughan and Adrian Alphona in its initial run got a lot of great critical acclaim and positive word of mouth that didn’t translate into proportionate sales.  After eighteen issues, the title was put on hiatus for a couple months and given a new #1 and it wound up selling a lot more than the previous volume.  Garth Ennis’ “Punisher” set in the Marvel Universe was relaunched into its legendary “MAX” incarnation around the time of the Thomas Jane/John Travolta movie, and it sold better and lasted longer than its non-mature readers incarnation.  Bendis and Oeming’s “Powers” also got a new #1 when it jumped from Image to Marvel/Icon and sales subsequently exploded for those first few issues before tapering off with the title’s erratic schedule.

Marvel is apparently going to try this again with Paul Cornell’s run on “Wolverine” as his current run with Alan Davis is wrapping up soon and a new #1 is due in February with Ryan Stegman.  I liked the first volume well enough and maybe this new “mortal” direction with the character will get people interested in the character’s ongoing title again.  On one hand, the relaunch could be seen as a vote of confidence in Cornell’s run with this measure being taken to give it extra exposure.  On the other, it does look just a little desperate.

To get back on track, even though this latest relaunch of “Wolverine” is also being marketed as a new direction for the character and as a jumping on point, it’s still building on what Cornell has already done with the character.  No matter how well the previous issues are summarized in this latest #1, there’s always going to be the nagging sense in the back of the reader’s mind that they’re missing out on something.  Particularly if they keep the numbering of the collected editions from this relaunch consistent with Cornell’s current run.

I guess what I’m trying to say here is that unless there’s a new writer involved taking the series in a new direction, jumping on points just don’t work for me.  No matter how a writer, artist or editor may spin things, there’s always going to be something to remind you that you’ve missed out on the previous issues and will need to go back and buy them too.  So really, they’re a fantastic marketing tool when they work in the way they’re intended and get a lot of new readers onboard.  Not me, though.  If a series is good enough for people to start hyping up a jumping on point for it, then that’s just a sign I need to get in on the ground floor.