How many times have readers been subjected to the above situation? The comics industry would have us believe that a multi-part crossover is the only way that the current epic story can be told with any competency. Normally, the story teams several superheroes, or places each hero within the story realm as a solo. As the saga continues it moves to the next book. This allows heroes that would normally not work together, fight a common evil, thus allowing the reader to view new and interesting aspects of the heroes. It is more than just a "quick and dirty" story, but rather it is an epic tome that will be marked in the annals of comic book history forever. Depending on the length of the crossover, the hero just finishing his/her part of the adventure will either continue to participate (for long cross-overs), or return to normal life (in shorter cross-over stories), during the next issue.
Is this what the readers want? Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. It depends on the story itself, and the frequency of multi-part crossovers. Readers have been subjected to the Spider-Man multiple multi-part crossovers (I realize this is a 'DC' fanzine, but to me Spider-Man is the king of the crossovers), Death of Superman, Batman's Knightfall trio of cross-overs, Contagion/Legacy, and the Final Night (to a lesser extent, later on this method of crossover). These represent the more ambitious crossovers to hit the street in the last several years.
Each crossover had its strengths and weaknesses. Some were very popular and successful, while others merely caused frustration and resentment among readers. The trick is to find the proper balance between a story that can be told through just one main character, and a work where many titles and issues are used to tell the story. Readers interested in just one or two characters usually find themselves having to wade through a storyline that isn't very interesting (to them). Readers interested in the whole comic universe are more likely to have a positive response to the crossover.
If readers think that the comic book creative teams, and editors are really trying to give them a quality product that can't be provided in any way other than through multiple parts or as a crossover, then they will initally accept the project with open arms. If the story proves to be a great read, then the risk (for the industry and the reader), pays off. Care must be given in all cases since crossovers normally deal with a situation that has world-wide consequences. If not properly followed up in all titles after the crossover, it appears that the story was merely a means to team several heroes, thus selling a lot of books. What good is a world-wide devistation if life pretty much goes back to normal in the issue following the crossover?
The "Final Night" story was a refreshing means to tell a world shaking story without forcing readers to buy more books than they want or can afford (a discussion of the pricing for books is more suited for another article).
Another aspect of multiple part stories is that of the single title with a continuing story. This is the type of writing that provides a protracted story without the messyness of coordinating different books, editorial staffs and creative teams to make a coherent, interesting story. Whereas one-part stories seem to be difficult for writers to create coherent, indepth and interesting sagas, writing a multiple-part story is a viable option to tell a bigger, more indepth story. It creates the anxiety accompanying the end of the issue's cliffhanger, followed by the long, 30 day wait for the next issue to appear so the reader can find out how the hero survived the unsurvivable. It is a means for the writer to build characters under the same set of stressors and antagonists without the restriction of the standard 21 page format. All of these reasons make comic books the great serials that they are known to be.
What's the point? The point is that readers don't need to know the number of parts there are in a particular story arc. Life isn't divided up in part one of seven. It just happens. If comics would drop the habit of making clean lines between adventures it would result in a smoother flowing life of the lead, and supporting characters in the books. I believe that this practice of not numbering segments of each part of a multiple part story would increase interest and longevity of readers. Instead of dropping in for this or that story arc, the reader would be pulled into the life of the main character (that is if the character had an interesting life).
Many years ago comics didn't list the number of parts in each arc. The book just continued on and on, with some things being resolved, and others not. Just like life. As a kid I didn't think about story arcs. I didn't even know they existed, but rather thought that the life of Peter Parker was an ongoing story that was inundated with bad guys and personal tribulations. Looking back, and comparing the stories of yesteryear to those of today I find that while many things are better about today's stories, they lack the continuous flow of yesterday's stories.
In conclusion, the multi-part crossovers should be provided to the public very sparingly. Flooding the market with stories that result in readers having to buy more books than wanted (if we are to know the whole story behind "Super-Such-and-Such"), only serves to cause anger and frustration. If this is coupled with a lame storyline, readers can only assume that the crossover was merely a marketing ploy by the company. As for same title multiple part stories, they are the way to go. The change that needs to be made is for the industry to drop the parts numbering. Make the lives of our comic book heroes a smooth flowing drama, not choppy links of multiple part stories.