>>149496102
Comics were a disposable form of entertainment with very low profit margins. It is a literal miracle that any of them turned out to be good with decent creators who cared. I feel like this context is important. Reliably good is what good runs of comics are like, but a lot of it is still forgettable entertainment with occasional enjoyable stuff on average.
People need their entertainment to matter, now more than ever, fitting into some grand narrative paradigm about things (e.g. culture wars), mostly because that fits the consumerism being pushed by companies or ideas being formulated online. People don't speak to you with genuine conviction about their tastes, they talk in narratives which is why things so easily fit into extremes. Talking about what you like, especially on the Internet, is akin to circling the wagons and preparing to be attacked. So people only say they like certain things that are beyond reproach (rec lists) but they can't explain why they liked something. I don't care if you liked something because of nostalgia, that is still a valid reason to like something, but people are reticent to explain why they liked things, let alone do deep dives into it.
Comic book conversation can devolve into rec list, this is good, that is bad, no real cutting your teeth in conversations. It makes the hobby a rather solitary pursuit. So many debates on /co/ end up half remembered readings of a run or outrage tourists rather than actual people really getting into why they liked or hated something. And this hobby is a journey. A book might not appeal to you now but in time it might appeal to you. But just saying to someone, read Kirby FF because it is the best thing ever when maybe older books don't appeal to them won't make them a reader. You might have to evolve their taste and get them into different things, different paths and maybe they will circle back around, maybe not.