Definition of DEFINITIVE
1: serving to provide a final solution or to end a situation <a definitive victory>
2: authoritative and apparently exhaustive <a definitive edition>
3a : serving to define or specify precisely <definitive laws> b : serving as a perfect example : quintessential <a definitive bourgeois>
4: fully differentiated or developed <a definitive organ>
This is kind of sorta what I wanted to express in my "Runs" topic eventually,but that went off into a whole 'nother tangent so instead of adding to that thread,here we go.
The term "definitive" is thrown around a lot in the comics fan world and we use this term in relation to what the general consensus is the "best" run/take on a character or characters.If you gather a group of fans and do some name association you might hear some of these examples:
Daredevil-Frank Miller
Thor-Walt Simonson
X-Men-Claremont/Byrne
Hulk-Peter David
Teen Titans-Wolfman/Perez
Now that's just a couple off the top of my head I thought of to show an example,but let's put aside personal favorite runs and stick to what is regarded by fans and companies as "definitive" and what does it really mean.
Looking at the definition of the word,you have to wonder is it really something you want to use in regards to comics? My point being is,if Walt Simonson's run on Thor is the definitive take on the character,why read Thor after or before? Walt defined Thor....anything after it is going to be derivative of that and less likely to matter right? Of course not,there were some good Thor stories before and after Walt,but they're not referred to as "definitive" thereby relagating them to a sub-catgory and anything before Walt,the same. It's almost like saying to a new reader: "Here,this is the definitive Thor...nothing before or since is as good so don't bother."
I never use "definitive" in a description of a book to anyone looking to get into comics. I will point out that these are some of the best stories and essential reading in regards to the character but that's as far as I'm willing to go. You want to cultivate someone into reading a wide range in regards to comics,not confine a book to one writer/artist.
Let's look at it this way,if you want someone to read say,X-Men, what would you give 'em? Me? I hand them the entire Claremont/Byrne run but someone else might give them Claremont/Smith or Claremont Romita Jr. or Claremont/Lee or Morrison's run...all good examples of the X-Men that could interest someone enough to read the book monthly, but is any of those "definitive"? I don't think so,because,again,that would be saying "It doesn't get any better than this." and that's not what you want to say to new or returning readers.
Definitive is,in a word,subjective and what you want is for people to read and discover their own "definitive".That's what comcis is all about....the fun of discovery.Remember that,if someone asks you what the definitive take on a character is. I tell them "That's something you find on your own,but here are some good examples I think you might enjoy and the rest is up to you."
