padded storytelling in comics: a matter of fact or a matter of taste?

I'm of two minds when it comes to comic-book plotlines. Part of me is all for the six-issue storyline because I feel there's more room for twists, turns and character development. Another part of me loathes stories that are too long because, for one thing, they hurt my wallet, and for another thing (historically) the longer the storyline stretches, the more an artist's work tends to deteriorate in the process. But I've never really joined the "padding" bandwagon.

The latest comic book series I've only just started which may be accused of padding is "Ultimate Secret" which boasts probably the best pencil-and-ink art in comics today. It's a four-issue miniseries and is supposedly the second part of a trilogy, the first of which comprised five issues. Now, I didn't check out the first series (because Steve McNiven didn't draw it) but I've read how some people were really not please with its pace.

The truth is, were it not for the sheer economics of it, I think that stories that stretch out over four, six or even eight issues are actually pretty good ideas because writers aren't under too much pressure to truncate the story's major developments into so many issues. Sometimes, a story arc that's too short feels anti-climactic. Some examples of this, I feel, were a few of JMS' Amazing Spider-Man story arcs, and the first arc of Image Comics' Aria. There was potential for epic storytelling there, but whether by editorial directive or writers' prerogative, the story was just cut short.

Besides, story arcs that span four to six issues give us a very nice showcase of talented artists' work, without necessarily overextending them or running them into scheduling problems. Jim Lee, especially on his X-Men days, tended for some reason to deteriorate as his storyarcs dragged on, which is why what DC did with his Batman work, namely giving him several months of lead time before they released his first issue, was brilliant. (Too bad it hasn't worked out that way with his Superman stuff, which has also tapered off a bit in terms of quality). It's nice to see up-and-coming geniuses like Steve McNiven stretch their legs for four, five or six issues, rather than cram everything they've got into one-shots, the way Art Adams, who couldn't do a monthly book if his life depended on it, used to do with the X-Men annuals.

On a final note, I think that the so-called "padded" storytelling makes for a more cinematic approach, in that there's more "show" and less "tell." It's easy enough for a writer to cram each individual issue with exposition, but in some ways it's more fun to let pictures/panels tell the story. Which is not to say that it doesn't ever drag, because sometimes it can.

Well, basically my only complaints with "padded storytelling" would be that it isn't exactly cheap to follow, and that artists can sometimes slack off in terms of quality (or worse, get fill-in artists), but other than that I think writers and artists should be free to tell stories at their own pace, without having to worry about how many issues they can cram a single story into.