Comments on: Parasyte 6

By: Connie

Connie — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 07:59:47 +0000

That’s true. 70s manga just excels at anything it sets out to do.

By: Sara K.

Sara K. — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:46:18 +0000

Actually, I realize that comparing anything to my 1979 Glass Mask printings is unfair because, um, my Glass Mask volumes from the *1990s* actually show quite a bit of yellow, and look much older than my 1979s. And judging by the fading on the cover of my 1979 volumes, they weren’t protected from light either. The paper in those 1979 volumes looks brighter and newer than almost any volume I have that’s older than 2 years. I guess 1970s manga is so great even the paper stock is amazing.

By: Connie

Connie — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 07:22:38 +0000

Hmm. That’s true, I don’t really like the fact that the paper edges tan even when stored out of light. It’s a problem with the paper stock from most English-language manga publishers, but it’s as you say, none of my Japanese-language volumes have yellowed over the years, even the ones that are printed on far thinner stock that you really can see through. Most of what I have are bunkoban or editions printed on higher quality paper stock, but even the oldest one I have, a copy of Sons of Eve from a printing done in 1979, is not yellow. I wonder how that works.

The CMX binding was a problem, and I’m glad they fixed it. There was another publisher that I remember being particularly bad about not having gutters in their books and running text straight into the binding… I can’t remember which it was, though. It was a long time ago, maybe 2000, so whoever it was has fixed the problem since. It bothers me that I can’t remember which books it affected now… I’ll have to go through some of my old stuff.

By: Sara K.

Sara K. — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 15:29:59 +0000

Good for Tokyopop. If they’re that experienced in mega-editions, then they should be able to implement it on a wider basis. They probably can’t price 3-in-1 editions of original material that low (translators and editors want to get paid), but it’s easier to take a price hike on something which is still cheaper than $30 (for three volumes). There’s the frequency issue … but I imagine there’s ways around that.

While I don’t insist on really good paper, paper quality is something I notice for comics. And while a lot of the problems of the early CMX was caused by the tight binding … it’s quite a problem. It definitely affects my reading experience in a bad way. Also, the paper has deteriorated more than my early Glass Mask volumes, which were printed in … 1979. And trust me, it’s not due to lack of abuse of those Glass Mask volumes. But maybe the price of paper went up faster than inflation, so it was possible in 1979 to get such good paper for a low price, or maybe paper is generally cheaper in Asia.

By: Connie

Connie — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 07:44:56 +0000

Tokyopop is actually the best among the publishers at printing the oversized volumes. Their recent Jyu-Oh-Sei was the wideban release that collected five volumes into three. They’ve also recently been printing thicker compilations, like the 350-page collection of Masami Tsuda’s stories. I believe they are also opting to print 3-in-1 omnibus volumes of their popular series rather than reprinting the early volumes, and their omnibuses are priced at $12.99.

The stories that I’ve read of their drop in quality are also greatly exaggerated. I was expecting quality along the lines of the skinny Chix Comix era, where 200 pages looked more like 80 and the volumes had an extremely small trim size. The paper quality is rougher, but it is not newsprint, nor will the ink rub off on your hands. I also didn’t notice problems with the art showing through to the other side of the page and making things impossible to read. The volumes aren’t noticeably thinner either, at least compared to the ones I’m looking at right now. And the problem with the early CMX volumes for me was mostly the tight binding with stuff running into it, but the Tokyopop binding isn’t tight, and nothing runs into the gutter. Or, at least that was my impression from Future Diary, which I assume has all the changes that people were talking about. I actually like the new paper quality, though it is quite a bit pulpier than before, and it is a shame it coincided with the price hike. People complained about the Chix Comix and the paper was only used for a few months, so I assume the same thing will happen with the recent change. Of course, I really liked the tiny, thin Chix Comix, and I tend not to notice paper quality, so I may just favor the opposite end of the book quality spectrum.

I do love the Netcomics method of distribution. I would much rather own what I read online there, but it’s just so easy to read middling series that I have no expectations for, register surprise or disappointment, and then never think about it again. Their 48-hour model is great for that reason, because there is very little in their online-only content that I would read again, and even if I do get the urge it’s only $1 per volume. I kind of wish more publishers would follow that example.

By: Sara K.

Sara K. — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 02:06:56 +0000

The only way I think the cheap middle-of-the-road idea would work is if someone like Netcomics did it, which is in fact exactly what they do. Otherwise, I don’t think the increased sales would compensate for an extremely tight margin. And I’m really sad that Tokyopop had increased prices and (according to what people are saying) reduced the paper quality to below early CMX level. I don’t know what options Tokyopop has, but it’s a slap in the face to reduce quality and increase prices at the same time. What I think might have been a better alternative is to stop printing tankoban-style volumes, and instead have 600 page volumes. They sometimes do this in Europe to cut costs for the buyer (and the publisher too, I would imagine).

By: Connie

Connie — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 20:05:24 +0000

True. It probably would be a good idea to bail on quality and sell some middle-of-the-road series really, really cheaply just to see if the demand for cheap books makes up for the small margin, but I don’t think that will happen, and I think the midground series probably will suffer for the increase even if I personally do not mind. There were some price increases by… I think it was Del Rey, who priced up books that were sure to be better sellers, which seems like a good idea. You probably could squeeze an extra dollar out of volumes of Vampire Knight and Naruto and Fruits Basket and make up for ailing sales elsewhere, but that might also just make the younger crowd turn to scanslations even more than they already do. It’s a shame.

By: Sara K.

Sara K. — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 20:02:47 +0000

Oh, personally I’m not bothered by the price increases either, particularly since they mostly affect stuff I was not so interested in. In fact, price increases might help me balance my budget, since extremely low prices are what’s currently plaguing it. My point is that price increases are bad *for the publishers* if they are dealing with an elastic demand. If they are dealing with an inelastic demand or rising costs, raising prices is the right business decision.

By: Connie

Connie — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 07:39:36 +0000

My parents pretty much drilled savings into me from an early age with stories of doom and gloom about what happens when you can’t pay for things. But I think a lot of my friends in high school and their parents also set pretty good examples when I was growing up. It wasn’t until I moved and went to college that I ran into people that let money slip through their fingers like water and would complain about going without after spending ridiculous amounts on frivolous things. Not being able to provide for myself is a terrifying enough thought that it usually stops me if I think I’m stepping over the limit.

I don’t mind the price increase as much. Most volumes can still be had for 40% off as soon as they come out, and I was actually pretty impressed with how long the prices stayed as low as they did. $10.95 is still really cheap compared to other graphic novels, and they still cost less than a standard paperback novel, and only a dollar more than the new price points a lot of publishers are beginning to use on even mass market paperbacks. I know there’s something to be said about the length of time spent with a volume of manga vs. a regular novel or a more expensive graphic novel, but manga still strikes me as a better value than the others.

By: Sara K.

Sara K. — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 00:29:14 +0000

Actually, my budget is suffering because of discounts. When I can only buy manga at modest prices, I have no trouble sticking to the spending limit. It’s when prices fall below $4 per volume that I lose control, and I have had quite a few opportunities lately to do just that. My personal demand for manga must be elastic, otherwise my budget wouldn’t be harder to manage when prices do down (and if a lot of manga readers are like me, it means the publishers who are raising prices are making a bad business move).

I am a saver because I was raised that way. And I’ve seen what happens to people who don’t save. Last year I was renting from a couple who had earned far more than my parents ever had, yet had major financial difficulties (that’s why they were renting to me). I got to see what it did to their lives. And finally, they had to sell the house. My parents don’t have to deal with those problems because of their savings, and I don’t want to deal with them either when I’m their age.

I think a lot of people don’t have those examples in their lives (seeing both older people who have saved and older people who have not), which may explain why they live from paycheck to paycheck.