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 see your point and would agree more or less. But, I also think you have to take into account that some of the good post-Walt (example) runs that get placed into said subcategory is indicative of various elements that interact and affect the industry in the timeframe you're reviewing.
Let's say, someone might point to Warren Ellis and Mike Deodato's stint on THOR in the late 90's. It had some genuinely defining aspects Ellis refreshed into the mythology that continues to be part of the character's universe even now (i.e. the return and emphasis on the Lee/Kirby idea that Asgard and Asgardian "magic" are elements of advanced alien technology rather than mysticism, such as in the current movies).
But, the run is only four issues long. So, can you point to that and then point to Walt's run and say they're both "definitive"?
The length of which creators stay on the book has, in my personal opinion, a proportional effect on how "definitive" their work can be considered. For me, just because Ellis revamped and refreshed some ideas in his 'WORLDENGINE' Thor storyline that stuck and currently "define" the character, I cannot honestly point to four issues and agree that it's the same as Walt Simonson's 45-issue run in the 1980's. Length matters. Insert joke here.
Honestly, I feel certain that most great comic writers create some of their best work when they're under a long-term contract for a single book and are forced to maintain its integrity. Rather than "superstars" coming in for six-issues of hype and "Oh my god Reed is drawn like Clooney!! LOLS!" bullshit that the WI$ARD Magazine/Mark Millar era is so known for.
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."
That's a nice, business approach, and one I agree with. However, as someone who doesn't own a comic shop, I'm the type that when someone wants a "definitive" run on a book, I try to take into account what type of person I'm dealing with, what their other tastes are, and why they're interested in learning more. For most, if they want something unique or original in the superhero lot, I fall back on 90's-On books, because most before are
INCREDIBLY dated in terms of dialogue and tropes. We're at least two generations past the 80's "Bronze Age" (a.k.a. the "Golden Age" of our youth). It's to the point those books are as dated as the 60's were to us.
My wife, bless her, actually sat down and read CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTH. She's seven years younger than me, and where I read it when it came out at age 13 in 1985/86, she didn't read it until 2003. Her reaction was that the art was timeless (Hey baby, it's fucking Perez!) but the story was....bizarre. I agreed the multiple Earth shit was kind of confusing for someone new to comics. But, she wasn't talking about the plot. She understood it clearly. It was the dialogue. I'm sure you know as deep you are into comics, A1, that dialogue in the 80's is subjective at best. If they aren't SuperFriends-ing all over the place describing what they're doing
as they do it (
), then the characters are speaking in 80's-style catchphrases ("the best at what I do, and what I do ain't pretty, bub") or broken faux-pulp mumblings--...usually there's a Miller involved with that one, though.
So, I go with things like GOLDEN AGE. The STARMAN OMNIBUS editions. MARVELS. KINGDOM COME. IRREDEEMABLE. YEAR ONE. I don't even bother with things like DKR or WATCHMEN. Neither speaks to the current world. It can only really inform of the time it was printed. It's no longer new or relevant. It's standard now. They're both almost
vanilla, really. Well, maybe more DKR than WATCHMEN. There's some meat to Moore's opus. But, DKR? Whew! Read that one lately? It has not aged well. Unless you remember Reagan's America.
All that rambling said, my point is that I believe unless someone is a super-deep comics fan, or they're fully informed and prepared to accept the anachronistic qualities of the superhero mythology of the time, then I believe most of the modern generation would be very turned off from it. Including the classics like Simonson's THOR, Claremont/Byrne X-MEN, and even...to a point...the early 90's Jim Lee X-MEN stuff. Times are changing quick, man.
- Edited Clause for Reasons of Being Stoned While Writing This Essay: I'm speaking primarily about writing. If someone is looking for the definitive art runs, oh the 80's are a goldmine if you can find cleaned-up-ink-smear collected editions.
Re-Edited to Ask: Hey Al, did you ever pick up the Byrne FF Omnibus Part One they've released? They cleaned up all of that pre-Baxter paper ink smear from the mid-80's printing. But, they didn't touch that glorious Austin thick-lined inking. It looks marvelous. Much suggested purchase if you haven't already... 
