The thing about all this that sometimes just pushes me over the wall is the simple concept of whether you think this stuff is art, or not.

I mean, really.

If a publisher were to put out an edition of "Of Mice and Men" or "The Martian Chronicles" or "The Lord of the Rings" with reconstructed contents which were really nothing more than a well-crafted facsimile...would that be acceptable to you?

If EMI put out a remastered and enhanced CD of The Beatles that sounds completely different...and I mean completely different...from the old vinyl, is that acceptable?

If there were a missing scene in CITIZEN KANE and a version came out on DVD with a "reconstructed scene" as a replacement, would that be OK with you...even if the original scene were available in a sub-standard form?

The original DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL was released in the standard screen format of the day. Today's standard format is widescreen. Should that classic movie be re-released in the present format, even though it would distort the original?

Personally, I think comics are art. I believe that, even as escapist reading, they reflect the attitudes and atmosphere of the day. They were produced by artisans who gave it their all...who, for the most part, did their very best...by many of whom who believed in what they were doing. So, when they are reprinted, I believe they should be showcased by the best available source material. Without so-called "enhancing" reconstruction. Without editing. Without "bringing it up to today's standards." While I may concede that editing out the squeaking chair at the end of "Day in the Life" might be tempting, the fact is that the squeaking chair is there in the original recording. The Beatles knew is was there when they first released it. It should, therefore, be considered part of the "official" artistic work, and any future release of the work needs to remain true to the original.

I think comics need to be looked at in the same way. The best source material needs to be found, and then the end product needs to remain as true to the original as possible. Both in reproduction quality...and size. It absolutely drives me nuts when someone like DC recreates the cover of something like...say, JLA #2...and it does not even come close to the original.  I think that degrades the original, and does nothing to give the original work the respect it deserves. When I read a collection of Golden Age stories and have to literally pull the book apart so I can read the story sucked into the gutter, while having top and bottom margins so big I can write my diary...well, to me that is inexcusable.

But, I suspect that's because there are many who don't consider this stuff art.

It's just junk.

And, there's the rub.