X-Men Vs. Dracula #1

 The cover says issue #1. The cover looks new (for 1993.) But open up the book and what do I get, but a bloody reprint (Uncanny X-Men Annual #6) Yes, it features masterful storytelling by the ultimate writer of X-titles, Chris Claremont. No, we don't get the masterful pen and pencil of John Bryne. But it's close with Bill Seinkiewicz providing the art.

   But it's a blasted reprint! I've already read this before...

  It's a good story. However, the plot relies on the reader being very familiar with the 1970s Tomb of Dracula series of which I am not. Plus it's more of a Dracula tale than an X-Men title and I feel like Marvel used this annual as an opportunity to wrap up some loose ends from Tomb.
 
   Sadly, publishers hijack popular titles as a way to finish out unpopular plotlines. It makes it hard for loyal readers of the less popular titles to get closure since it's hidden in another title. On the flipside, it's just as difficult for readers of the popular publication being hijacked, who must endure characters and plots that just aren't up to snuff.

   I also hate it when a publisher reprints a title under a completely different title (like this one) and don't warn the reader on the cover. Now I know I could just look inside and see if it's a reprint or has a crossover cliffhanger. But when you are at a comic book store and the book is taped and boarded, more often than not unless your good buddies with the owner, they frown upon you breaking up bags least you damage the book and lower the value. So, you can see why I didn't know that this wasn't an original title or story.

    Thankfully I didn't pay more than $1 for this or I would have been furious.

  Rating: 6 out of 10 stars.

(BTW- there were 3 other titles in this Vs. Dracula series. They include Dr. Strange, the Silver Surfer, and Spider-man. I have not read those titles previously and since I know they are reprints, I do have those books on my wish list.)