Walking Dead #100 best selling comic of the century with 383,612 

twitter Walking Dead #100 best selling comic of the century with 383,612 0facebook Walking Dead #100 best selling comic of the century with 383,612 0google Walking Dead #100 best selling comic of the century with 383,612 0pinterest Walking Dead #100 best selling comic of the century with 383,612 0tumblr Walking Dead #100 best selling comic of the century with 383,612 reddit Walking Dead #100 best selling comic of the century with 383,612 0stumbleupon Walking Dead #100 best selling comic of the century with 383,612 0email Walking Dead #100 best selling comic of the century with 383,612 

201207151853 Walking Dead #100 best selling comic of the century with 383,612 

As predicted, THE WALKING DEAD #100 has smashed records, with 383,612 in initial orders. Published with 13 variant covers, this issue of the popular comic is the best selling comic since 1997’s THE DARKNESS #11.

Featuring gory, harrowing events, the comic, by creator Robert Kirkman and artist Charlie Adland, was a hot topic at Comic-Con.

Details in the PR:

Robert Kirkman’s Eisner Award-winning The Walking Dead comic series for Image Comics/Skybound reached its milestone 100th issue and instantly sold out of its 383,612 initial orders on July 11th, the same day it was released, effectively becoming the best-selling comic book in initial orders for any publisher since 1997, when Image Comics/Top Cow’s The Darkness #11 was released. The Walking Dead, created and written by Kirkman with art by Charlie Adlard, featuring 13 variant covers for the 100th issue — all sold out — has been the talk of San Diego Comic-Con with a series of events celebrating its release. Kirkman is a partner in Image Comics, the first person invited to join the comic book industry’s premier publisher of creator-owned comics since its inception twenty years ago.

“This is a remarkable achievement,” said Image Comics Publisher Eric Stephenson. “It’s extremely uncommon, if not flat-out rare, for a comic book to see a sustained increase in sales following its first issue, but The Walking Dead steadily climbed up and up since its launch in 2003, and we couldn’t be more proud of Robert, Charlie and the whole Walking Dead team.”

“The Walking Dead continues to greatly exceed all my expectations in all forms,” said Robert Kirkman. “I am especially excited for what this means for comics as an industry, that this is an independent comic hitting that number.” Kirkman continued, “The future of comics couldn’t be brighter as more and more readers are embracing new ideas in a big way.”

On Wednesday night, Hyundai, Future US, and Kirkman’s Skybound imprint at Image Comics unveiled the Kirkman-designed Zombie Survival Machine from a transformed Hyundai Elantra Coupe. On Thursday, Skybound and Ruckus Sports unveiled The Walking Dead Escape: San Diego, an obstacle course where anyone could live the experience of being a zombie apocalypse survivor and effects whiz Greg Nicotero and team transformed participants into one of the undead.

Kirkman will give away a Hyundai Elantra GT wrapped in Charlie Adlard’s iconic cover of The Walking Dead’s 100th issue, which was on display Friday night at Petco Park during the private The Walking Dead 100th Issue VIP Black Carpet Event. The exclusive party featured a fully immersive recreation of a post-apocalyptic world infested with zombies. 

The Skybound booth at Comic-Con, #2729, featured a slew of exclusive merchandise, including The Walking Dead #100 Vannen Watch, The Walking Dead Bloody Michonne Variant action figure and The Walking Dead Hardcover Compendium, which collects issues #1-48 of the iconic comic series. 

The Walking Dead topped the bestseller lists for graphic novels in 2011 and frequently topped the New York Times and Amazon’s bestseller lists, taking the top five spots on hardcover and paperback lists. Kirkman is also the executive producer and writer of the hit television show, AMC’s The Walking Dead, the highest-rated basic cable drama of all time in the U.S for season two. Friday’s AMC panel was one of the hottest events at Comic-Con. The show is also an international success in 120 countries, showing in 250 million households worldwide.

Comments

  1. dont you mean DECADE…..not Century..lol
    every book in the 90’s sold in the millions

  2. Why did Darkness 11 sell so many copies?

  3. Oh, it had 15 covers. Never mind.

    Glad they included the “initial orders” caveat because it’s never going to hit Obama Spider-Man numbers.

  4. Ed Brubaker says:

    The century started in 2001, so…

  5. everette, The ’90’s’ as you say, was in the last century. This is so far, the best selling book of this century. The 21st century.

  6. Dasbender says:

    @everette, I suspect the headline was referring to the best selling comic of the 21st century. 1997 was last century.

  7. Dasbender says:

    I guess I should hit refresh more often.

  8. Shouldn’t we all, Dashbender? Well, at least we all agree.

  9. Cerebro says:

    If THE WALKING DEAD #100 ends up at #1 on Diamond’s July sales chart (with numbers like that, it looks, undoubtedly, likely), I believe it’ll be the first time since 2001 that an indie (i.e. non-Marvel or DC) title has claimed the #1 spot. If I’m not mistaken, Dreamwave did it last when they relaunched TRANSFORMERS. If I am mistaken, someone please correct me.

  10. What-Ev says:

    Ed Brubaker

    07/15/2012 at 10:24 pm

    “The century started in 2001, so…”

    A century is just a period of 100 years and can start at any time. The “21st century” started in 2001.

    This wasn’t specifically aimed at Ed Brubaker, and I’m not saying anyone is wrong. I do think The Beat should edit the headline for the sake of clarity, however.

  11. >> A century is just a period of 100 years and can start at any time.>>

    And as such, if they’d said “best selling comic in a century,” it’d mean of the last 100 years.

    “Best selling comic of _the_ century” means a specific century, and without further context would generally be assumed to mean the current numbered century, the 21st.

  12. Thank you, Kurt.

  13. jacob goddard says:

    I’m certainly all for this mainstream format creator owned thing going on right now, but i’m worried it will be just another boom/bust trend that comics seem to see every 15 or so years. That the market will be flooded by inferior comics and everyone will suffer because of it.

    The market has proven that the customers are idiots and that eager young cartoonists (or seasoned vets looking to step out of the corporate mold) will hop on a chance to prove themselves without the talent or wearwithall to put out good comics worth reading.

    How do we avoid this on this go around?

  14. jacob goddard says:

    Really?
    Is “What Is A Century?” the only thing about this article that you guys want to talk about?

    Not what this means for the future of comics, or how this reflects current trends, but a stupid argument over syntax?

  15. horatio weisfeld says:

    “What Is A Century?” the only thing about this article that you guys want to talk about?

    Not what this means for the future of comics, or how..

    >>
    @jacob goddard:

    I will finish typing this, get dressed and walk to the corner.

    Will spend whole day there -leaning back against my favorite post.

    Time and space are one.
    There is no remorse.

  16. The existing list of the best-selling comics through Diamond of the 21st century can be found here:

    http://www.comichron.com/vitalstatistics/topcomics2000s.html

    …and a few caveats are necessary, as people will be drawing comparisons. First, yes, Diamond did report North American sales of 530,500 copies of the various versions of Amazing Spider-Man #583, the Obama issue, over the course of 2009. That figure includes 352,847 copies in January 2009 — the highest one-month figure to that date — with the remainder coming in successive months.

    I’m alerting readers now that the Walking Dead number that Diamond will report in August — and that you will see estimated on Comichron and ICV2 and elsewhere — will be different from the publisher’s figure, because the Diamond total does not include the UK. But neither does anything on the above-linked chart, so it’ll remain apples-to-apples in that regard. (The table also doesn’t include sales to the newsstand; it’s not clear on whether the announced WD figure includes its newsstand draws or not.)

    In any event, if there are successive reprintings — as there were in the ASM case — you can expect the WD #100 figure to increase throughout the year as well. I only update the 2000s table in January, so the comparisons will become a lot clearer then.

  17. Did anyone catch the surprisingly under-reported Walking Dead panel?

    http://www.newcomicsday.com/ncd/2012/07/sdcc-walking-dead-panel-rick-will-die/

  18. horatio weisfeld says:

    the market will be flooded by inferior comics and everyone will suffer because of it.

    >>

    @jacob goddard:

    Raining &so back from the corner:

    :
    OK — so you’re worried about the bust end of a new comics “boom and bust” cycle that hasn’t actually materialized yet…hmm…and what puts the bad smell in your nose (if I’m following the logic) is the multiple cover things on WD#100 — which brings back memories of stuff (aka: crimes) that Marvel (and DC) did back in the early 90s- which burned down what was then a healthy comics market — ok..could that happen again anytime soon?… answer (I suppose) is:

    NO

    Nothing in America is likely going to be very susceptible to the sort of ponzi nuke bubble Marvel exploded in the comics market 20 years ago for the foreseeable future (maybe not for the rest of our lives) – The reason for this is, me thinks, twofold:

    1. The public just isn’t that enthralled with comics so much these days — and so is unlikely to join in and help overheat the comics market into a new mania.

    2. (sort of same as 1– but w/more nuance) In just a few months the American political class seems likely to wreck the entire United States economy (coming in Dec 2012 ?). People across the country are becoming increasingly aware of this coming (potential) financial Armageddon, and so they will be highly unlikely to want to spend massive additional precious funds on silly books – in fact one could make a reasonable argument that the American comic book market place maybe on the verge of a complete crash/contraction (along with many other parts of the “frivolous” media economy) as, if worse comes to worse, folks will be clinging to whatever cash they have, and looking to do whatever spending they do on only what they see as essentials … (again) I suspect that will not mean an increasingly insatiable desire for $4 silly books!

    SO (again/ another way & if I’m not mistaken): Walking Dead may pull some multiple-cover stunts in the short term, but this is unlikely to lead to any sort of cross-market, accelerated, 90s style comic book boom-and-bust mania. We may, however, find ourselves soon living in a world devoid of comic books, that in some ways resembles the world of The Walking Dead — nothing really surprises me anymore. If you’re not prepared, you should probably stop worrying about silly books & start getting ready.

  19. What-Ev says:

    Kurt Busiek

    07/15/2012 at 11:12 pm

    >> A century is just a period of 100 years and can start at any time.>>

    And as such, if they’d said “best selling comic in a century,” it’d mean of the last 100 years.

    >No. It could mean any century or any hundred years. It could be the century that started the week before this book came out.

    “Best selling comic of _the_ century” means a specific century, and without further context would generally be assumed to mean the current numbered century, the 21st.

    >Why assume when one can just write a better and more specific headline? Is it because specifics, while being incredibly helpful, suck all the sensationalism out of writing, especially journalism and advertisements? People assume different things. I’d assume from “THE century” that the author is talking about the last 100 years and not a specificly labeled century such as The 21st. If the writer meant a specific century, he or she should have then specified it, yes? Or how about “this century” instead of “the century?” There’s still room to assume incorrectly, but it adds in the fun of people commenting about how this century is only 11.5 years old while calling each other douchebags and other internet comment shenanigans (like spoilerific links!) Why stop at century? A new millennium started at the same time as the new century. That means Walking Dead 100 is The Best Selling Comic Of The Millennium!

    Specificity is your friend…unless you actually want to increase your hit count by having people argue semantics in your comment section. Then it’s your worst enemy. The more we are inundated with meaningless sensationalism, the less likely we are to find that which is meaningful.

  20. “If the writer meant a specific century, he or she should have then specified it, yes?”

    In case Kang the Conqueror might be lurking?

    “Specificity is your friend…”

    So is context.

    Kurt is right and you are wrong. Let’s go outside and dance. It’s sunny.

  21. James says:

    Enough with all the passive aggressive century commentary. Its just more posts I have to waste my time scrolling past! haha…

    Congrats to Kirkman & Adlard (not Adland -Beat writer)!! Love this series!! Weird that in this day and age a black and white (and grey) comic is number one! ;)

    I won’t however, be buying this single issue. I buy the trades. Although I am 95% confident that my online retailer I go through will give it out free!! :)

    That being said – I’ve never read the colour bit from issue #75 (?) because it was never in a trade – so lets see if the don’t include anything from issue 100%.

  22. >> Why assume when one can just write a better and more specific headline? >>

    Because it works fine as is. Because we don’t write English like we write computer programs, as if the reader can’t understand anything he or she isn’t told specifically. Because “of the century” has meant what it means for well over a century, at this point.

    But if you think it’s because someone thought “of the century” would trick people and be sensational, I expect you’re completely mistaken.

    >> Specificity is your friend…unless you actually want to increase your hit count by having people argue semantics in your comment section.>>

    Something you’re so opposed to, you’re joining right in.

    >> Let’s go outside and dance. It’s sunny.>>

    It took me a minute to make sense of that, until I realized you’re in Europe.

  23. “It took me a minute to make sense of that, until I realized you’re in Europe.”

    I should have been more specific on that. Apologies if my thoughtless nonspecificity tricked you into dancing in cold weather.

  24. If you think “Europe” is specific enough, you’re badly mistaken. Your terrible reporting almost made me go outside, and it’s raining! No sun here!

  25. goggles says:

    You could really see TWD hitting number one with issue 100 since about January with the way the orders kept creeping up and the Big Two’s top books were spreading out.

    I guess the real question is what will the orders look like for 101, 102 and 103. With the prices that the back issues are going for on ebay it seems like an awful lot of folks plan to stick around (or at least collect) for a while.

    Even if this book settles in the 60k range it could stay in the top 10 long term.

    Huge win for an excellent series. Couldnt happen to a better book IMO.

  26. horatio weisfeld says:

    >> A century is just a period of 100 years and can start at any time.
    >>

    @Kurt Busiek:

    Last night I dropped in to eat from the buffet at a christening next door (in my Manhattan building) – A bunch of Wall Street types were hanging around the baby (I stayed around the the buffet), and then some woman came bounding in (very distraught) and started arguing with the host. I couldn’t figure out what she was going on about – but then everybody, all at once, seemed to be shouting back at the woman – something like what you are saying?:

    “..Hail Adrian

    Hi power is stronger than stronger – his might shall last longer than longer.

    GOD IS DEAD – SATAN LIVES!

    THE YEAR IS ONE!

    He shall over throw the mighty and lay waste their temples. He shall redeem the despised and wreak vengeance in the name of the burned and the tortured.

    GOD IS DEAD!!!!!! SATAN LIVES!!!!!!

    THE YEAR IS ONE!!!!!!!! .. ”

    Since nobody was watching me- I stuffed my pockets fulla their crackers (plus other stuff) and skidadled home right after that.

    I don’t know so much about what all you are saying with this new century talk, but it’s sure going around.

  27. Snikt Snakt says:

    Its too bad the 100th issue itself was kinda crappy…

  28. jacob goddard says:

    @ horatio weisfeld

    I was referring more to the B&W boom of the 80s, not corporate comics’ glut of variant/gimmick covers in the 90s.
    I don’t think anyone mistook that for anything other than a quick and easy money grab.

  29. Joe S. Walker says:

    No doubt Walking Dead #100 sold a lot. But if a book has 13 variant covers, it’s worth pondering the difference between numbers of copies sold and actual readers.

  30. Go creator owned comics!

  31. That’s great! An exciting series with a huge following thanks to the series.
    Too bad the secondary market for issue 100 will now officially be too flooded that dealers will only be able to get cover price for most variants! And think, 5 years from now you’ll really be able to pick up a “bargain”.

  32. This is the best comment section of the century.

  33. Seriously though, congrats to Robert Kirkman and Image. I hope sales continue their steady upward trend for a long time.

  34. Synsidar says:

    Does an infectious agent as the cause of zombies actually make sense, or is it just an okay excuse to have zombies shambling along killing and eating people? With a supernatural cause, either the humans are overwhelmed and Evil wins, or the cause is eliminated and the zombies disappear. With a biological cause, the biology has to be convincing. At a minimum, the zombies can’t survive eating other people. Vitamin and mineral deficiencies will eventually incapacitate them, and then kill them.

    SRS

  35. >> Apologies if my thoughtless nonspecificity tricked you into dancing in cold weather.>>

    And in the DARK, to boot!

  36. “But if a book has 13 variant covers, it’s worth pondering the difference between numbers of copies sold and actual readers.”

    As of this morning, I’ve sold 58 copies of TWD #100, which is nearly a third more than I’ve sold of any issue of TWD in the first week (and the best we’ve ever sold of any issue, during 16+ weeks of shelf life going back at least 8 issues now.)

    Looking through these transactions, it appears that these 58 copies were bought by 52 distinct customers (well, or at least “distinct transactions”, because there’s no way to tell one “anonymous” customer from another… some one COULD have made a second or third trip to buy more, I guess), but anecdotally, it appeared to be a fairly significant # of “trade waiters” who mentioned seeing Kirkman plug the issue on “Talking Dead”.

    One store, one data point, but this looks like a genuine expansion in TWD’s audience (again!) from this side of the counter.

    -B

  37. @Richard Caldwell — you’re possibly already aware, but just to let you know that New Comics Day is a satirical site. Not legitimate news!

  38. “And in the DARK, to boot!”

    I get up in the evenin’, an’ I ain’t got nothin’ to say.

  39. PAUL D HOUSTON says:

    The numbers are exciting enough and at least someone besides Marvel/DC are making money, but I guarantee I will be able to find this comic for 50 cents somewhere in about 3-6 months just like I did the Obama Spidey book.

  40. What-Ev says:

    Marc-Oliver Frisch

    07/16/2012 at 3:45 am

    “If the writer meant a specific century, he or she should have then specified it, yes?”

    In case Kang the Conqueror might be lurking?

    “Specificity is your friend…”

    So is context.

    Kurt is right and you are wrong. Let’s go outside and dance. It’s sunny.

    >Kurt is not right. I am not wrong. Context isn’t given when one has to assume.

    Kurt Busiek

    07/16/2012 at 4:27 am

    >> Why assume when one can just write a better and more specific headline? >>

    Because it works fine as is.

    >Sure, it works fine, but it doesn’t work well.

    Because we don’t write English like we write computer programs, as if the reader can’t understand anything he or she isn’t told specifically. Because “of the century” has meant what it means for well over a century, at this point.

    >Yes, we do, and many often can’t. “Of the century” does mean what it means–“Of the hundred years”, but which hundred you’re talking about is up to interpretation. It’s not about dumb readers or poor writing. Most people don’t walk around thinking to themselves that they’re in the 21st century and it’s only just over a decade old. So when a headline states “….century”, people assume it’s a long time because only a few years ago “…century” meant the 20th with about 90 years to consider.

    So, yes: “But if you think it’s because someone thought “of the century” would trick people and be sensational, I expect you’re completely mistaken.”

    I’m not mistaken because that’s its sole purpose. Less of a trick and more outright sensationalism because I’m pretty sure a writer knows how readers read. Most readers would be shocked and curious then click the link before realizing the writer was only talking about the time since 2001 began. Still impressive, but not THAT impressive.

    It’s okay. I know you’re just sticking up for your friend.

    >> Specificity is your friend…unless you actually want to increase your hit count by having people argue semantics in your comment section.>>

    Something you’re so opposed to, you’re joining right in.

    >Even the best writers are guilty of breaking the rules sometimes. But go ahead and be more specific so I don’t have to assume.

    As fun as this is, I don’t really care about any of it. The headline should be changed for clarity, but clarity isn’t the purpose of a headline. It’s there to get people to read the whole article. So, it IS fine as it is, but it could be changed in the interest of clarity…even though there’s nothing really wrong with it.

  41. >> It’s okay. I know you’re just sticking up for your friend. >>

    I love the classic “You secretly agree with me but are lying about it for personal reasons” argument. It’s so utterly bankrupt.

    I must be coming to Heidi’s defense over a headline, not because a commonly-used phrase is commonly understood to mean what it’s commonly used for, but to protect her from the wrath of a slacker Daxamite who keeps arguing about it while insisting he doesn’t care.

    Seriously.

    >> As fun as this is, I don’t really care about any of it.>>

    Me, I like talking about words and language, but then, they’re my stock in trade. Still, it’s good you’ve gone from saying the headline should be changed because mindless sensationalism decays society or whatever, to saying that it’s fine, and could be changed but there’s nothing wrong with it.

    We all know you’re just saying that to stick up for Heidi.

  42. I sense that my sly attempt to get everybody to quote Bruce Springsteen lyrics at one another has failed.

  43. @Steve Morris – he knows. He’s a far more frequent contributor than even I.

    He was trying to plug a piece I put together in response to Walking Dead 100 and the title’s overall astrophenomenal death count.

    The actual article itself is a one-note wonder and fails in most regards as humor. My inability to recognize what’s funny is probably the single worst thing the site has going for it, next to poor design.

    In fact, part of the humor of this piece comes from the fact that the shocking spoiler is in the article’s headline and URL so you can’t even point to the spoiler without spoiling it. Unless you go out of your way to filter it. As I said, the humor is quite lacking.

    Now, I ask you: did you know that we are a site that satires comic book news, rather than just comic books? I bet our preoccupation with the Walking Dead gave that away.

  44. horatio weisfeld says:

    ..glut of variant/gimmick covers in the 90s.

    I don’t think anyone mistook that for anything other than a quick and easy money grab.

    >>
    @jacob goddard

    Well, I was there- and I didn’t take it for that at all.

    It wasn’t quick and it wasn’t easy –the only things the executives running comics grabbed was a gun, with which they shot every else, and then themselves, in the head .. after the suicidal ponzi-finance-scheme pulled by Marvel during that time, we are now lucky to still have a world where there are actual lines of comic books still being printed.

    What happened in the early 90s was much worse than the 80s black and white fiasco (something that also won’t be happening again any time soon, me thinks).

    If you don’t know detailed history on any of the early 90s industry meltdown, I strongly urge you to get you hands on issues of Comics Journal from the period, where Groth does his postmortem. (the Image artists also have a fine role in there)

    There are a lot of interesting similarities to be noted between the reckless garbage the leaders of comics pulled then and what the banks have been doing to the United States for years — two key distinctions: (1) our economy isn’t underpinned by comic books (2) and so Marvel Comics (and a few other players) couldn’t force you and me, the tax payers, to bail them out.

    The 80s black and white bust was caused mostly by very small businesses, it left a lot of innovation, and the damage was not permanent (example: The black and white CROW was still doing fine after the smoke cleared, and so were others) If we’re gonna have a capitalis..— I’m mean a “COMPETITION” based economy, isn’t that the way it should be?

    If you fixate on the 80s black and white crash, and ignore the 90s meltdown then me thinks you missing the (still) burning forest for the rotting tree.

  45. horatio weisfeld says:

    ..attempt to get everybody to quote Bruce Springsteen lyrics at one another has failed..

    >>
    @Marc-Oliver Frisch

    sound like a guy carrying the broken spirit.. of all the other ones who lost

    LOL/LetsStopNow.

  46. >> I sense that my sly attempt to get everybody to quote Bruce Springsteen lyrics at one another has failed.>>

    You know what they say: Can’t start a fire without a spark.

  47. Ed Brubaker says:

    Brian Hibbs – Walking Dead single issue sales started going through the roof when they spent a whole episode of Talking Dead showing the comics and talking about how if you want to know what might come next in the show, read the comics. 3 million people watch that aftershow thing, and of them, it appears a small amount found a comic shop, actually. Enough to actually make a difference.

  48. “You know what they say: Can’t start a fire without a spark.”

    But this gun’s for hire, even if we’re just dancin’ in the dark!

    (Okay, this is where EVERYBODY needs to join in to bring this baby home. EVERYBODY.)

  49. otistfirefly says:

    Zombies buying multiple covers of a book about zombies. Poetry in motion…

  50. Synsidar says:

    I can understand people not wanting to get into the logic of a zombie story, but consider: unless a zombie is a servant, or purely a symbol, his natural prey isn’t an armed human. It’s a defenseless animal or another zombie. The best strategy against a group of non-supernatural zombies would be to trap them and force them to eat each other.

    SRS

  51. Johnny Memeonic says:

    The intent of the headline to mean the 21st century is obvious.

    Anyone trying to argue that it isn’t in a failing attempt to save face would have been better off requesting their comment be deleted.

  52. What-Ev says:

    Kurt Busiek

    07/16/2012 at 2:40 pm

    >> It’s okay. I know you’re just sticking up for your friend. >>

    I love the classic “You secretly agree with me but are lying about it for personal reasons” argument. It’s so utterly bankrupt.

    I must be coming to Heidi’s defense over a headline, not because a commonly-used phrase is commonly understood to mean what it’s commonly used for, but to protect her from the wrath of a slacker Daxamite who keeps arguing about it while insisting he doesn’t care.

    Seriously.

    >Seemed like the only reasonable motivation. I tried to be diplomatic about it by saying nobody was wrong to hopefully avoid arguing about it even though it’s fun. Playing Devil’s Advocate is a good time, and I believed the alternate interpretations of the headline deserved a defense when comics professionals started chiming in to give the impression that only idiots could not know what the writer of the article was talking about. The fact remains that the lack of specificity of the headline leaves things open to interpretation and assumption, and it could have been avoided. Arguing for the common assumption doesn’t eliminate the validity of the uncommon assumptions. Your continued commentary seemed to me to be motivated by support of your comics compatriot over any real disagreement over word usage. I mean… I didn’t say it HAD to be changed. I said “should” and only for the sake of clarity which isn’t a big deal. I didn’t take a hard line until I was made out to be the asshole.

    >> As fun as this is, I don’t really care about any of it.>>

    Me, I like talking about words and language, but then, they’re my stock in trade.

    >Me too, but more of a hobby for me.

    Still, it’s good you’ve gone from saying the headline should be changed because mindless sensationalism decays society or whatever,

    >I never said that. I said it should be changed for clarity. Later, I said that headlines are often deliberately sensationalistic which is not a criticism of this blog but of journalism in general. It’s an aspect of “news” I find quite exasperating, and it does have a negative influence because I know plenty of people that refuse to watch televised news or buy a newspaper because they’re tired of the ridiculousness of it all.

    >>to saying that it’s fine, and could be changed but there’s nothing wrong with it.

    >There is something wrong with it: the lack of specifity. However, that’s more of an aesthetic wrongness than any technical or grammatical wrongness. It’s fine because sensationalism and luring readers in by knowing how they think are the accepted common practices of the day.

    I stand by my original comment. It should be changed. Do I care whether that happens? Nope. I didn’t even read anything in the headline beyond “Walking Dead #100 [...] 383,612″ before clicking to read the article. I had to go back and read it to find out why people kept referencing “the century.” Then, I decided the alternate interpretations by some folks deserved to be defended because the headline lacked specificty. One shouldn’t have to assume, nor should they be ridiculed in a comment section for not assuming the same thing as everyone else.

    Johnny Memeonic

    07/16/2012 at 5:34 pm

    The intent of the headline to mean the 21st century is obvious.

    >No, it isn’t. It’s assumptive. It might be the correct assumption, but that doesn’t make it obvious.

  53. The Beat comment section’s stubborn resistance to impromptu musical numbers is appalling.

    Props to Kurt, though.

    We tried!

  54. goggles says:

    The cripple on the corner cries out nickels for your pity, Marc-Oliver.

  55. horatio weisfeld says:

    The century begins and ends, over and over, back and forth — a tide of endless talk or a cascade of mind-bending Alex Nino drawings that, with each movement, appear ever more dog earned by the thumbs of unseen heartless gods who fire tire and with a wave send it all spiraling down, hitting the floor and shattering into shards which scatter out — until they finally return again as we are drawn with them, following Hawking’s (now denied) model: we rise from our graves and walk backwards through our lives, ultimately crawling back into the womb (yup, Hawking said that — go look the shit up) and some where in this .. once again.. in the quick of the night.. we reach for our moment.. and try to make an honest stand.

  56. So, from what I gather, this issue sold 300,000 copies because it had 13 variant covers. This doesn’t speak well about the future of comics, it just means readers continue with their destructive mentality of mindlessly collecting the same issue multiple times instead of spending money on other comics.

    These covers must be really amazing!

  57. Torsten Adair says:

    Miquel, not readers, but retailers are the people who bought those 300,000 copies.

    Now, since there are orders for a second printing, it looks like the retailers were able to resell those copies to customers.

    Or maybe… the tens of thousands of trade readers and fans of the television show (big overlap, one feeds the other) saw Mr. Kirkman’s tweets and whatnot, and thought, “Wow. That sounds cool. I can’t wait for the trade because everyone else I know online will be reading the comic and talking about it!”

    Maybe it’s like the Obama Spidey comic… word of mouth coupled with a well-known property generates lots of interest and sales.

Speak Your Mind

*