How can you take your history seriously?

[Captain Smith]

I was wondering about the psychological effects of the latest reboot of the multiverse. For example, the Monitors are babbling about the history of the nine houses with the forerunners.

Who cares - it was created a few months ago by some bug barf. If you know that your history is just a temporal construct is that real?

If you found out that your knowledge of your past was really just a construct - would you drop into existential crisis?

Knowing that all of this can unravel when the next dude comes along with an antimatter cannon or a big cootie - that might make you not really take all these grand pronouncements seriously.

[glennsim]

I was wondering about the psychological effects of the latest reboot of the multiverse. For example, the Monitors are babbling about the history of the nine houses with the forerunners.

Who cares - it was created a few months ago by some bug barf. If you know that your history is just a temporal construct is that real?

If you found out that your knowledge of your past was really just a construct - would you drop into existential crisis?

Knowing that all of this can unravel when the next dude comes along with an antimatter cannon or a big cootie - that might make you not really take all these grand pronouncements seriously.

One could argue that if they take it seriously, it must be something that was true prior to the reboot as well.

[jv2k]

I don't think the monitors are hardwired to question their existence.

Or maybe perhaps that is the reason why they are so paranoid about having dc characters cross into alternate universes. They don't care that they are in actually only a little over one year old(DC time) they only want to make sure their worlds and their lives remain.

[jadrax]

Actually the continuity of Human History is changed pretty much every month, everything we have currently is just an approximation that needs better research.

As very few people on earth seem to have a problem with the fact that our history is basically full of myths, stories, untruths and outright lies... I don't think comic book characters will have that much of an issue with it either.

[Metamorpho]

Monitors, much like Guardians are always babbling about something.

[Buried Alien]

I've sort of wondered that if, by now, at least some of the DC characters are aware that their lives are being periodically retconned, and that their memories today might not necessarily be their memories tomorrow. In the most recent issue of SUPERGIRL, Kara makes an allusion to something like that.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[stealthwise]

The bigger questions is: If they keep making changes like this, and any particular moment, good or bad, can be retconned away on an editorial whim, then why should we as fans/readers/critics give a holy crap about any of it?

[Buried Alien]

The bigger questions is: If they keep making changes like this, and any particular moment, good or bad, can be retconned away on an editorial whim, then why should we as fans/readers/critics give a holy crap about any of it?

There's the rub.

But it might not be all bad; we'd know that any decision that we don't agree with isn't necessarily set in stone.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[jv2k]

What if the final crisis was the DCU vs the writers and editors of DC?

[mattx110]

The bigger questions is: If they keep making changes like this, and any particular moment, good or bad, can be retconned away on an editorial whim, then why should we as fans/readers/critics give a holy crap about any of it?

because these stories are character-based. and if the characters acts true to themselves we will enjoy reading about them, because well, none of the stories are "real". elseworlds sold because it was an odd take of a character even though it had no bearing on continuity.
and there's the hope that any retcon will only serve to make the characters or events more interesting.


ever feel you needed to read all the sherlock holmes books in order so you can put together the continuity? i haven't, and it hasn't hurt my enjoyment of them at all.

[Denny Colt]

I was wondering about the psychological effects of the latest reboot of the multiverse. For example, the Monitors are babbling about the history of the nine houses with the forerunners.

Who cares - it was created a few months ago by some bug barf. If you know that your history is just a temporal construct is that real?

If you found out that your knowledge of your past was really just a construct - would you drop into existential crisis?

Knowing that all of this can unravel when the next dude comes along with an antimatter cannon or a big cootie - that might make you not really take all these grand pronouncements seriously.

I suggest "Existential Crisis" as the title for the next big DC event.:D

[CBikle]

The Monitors are the narrators for the "History Of The Multiverse" back-up in Countdown and they go into exact detail.

This proves that they have an overview over the DCU going from pre-CRISIS to present and perhaps have some idea what the future DCU will be like in the future.

The Monitors seem happy enough with the multiverse as it is now, but seem to disagree with what they need to do (or not do) to maintain the status quo.

[Captain Smith]

That's my point, the Monitors and others have knowledge that they are basically a year old in existence. That their whole history is a fraud and newly created.

That would make someone disturbed and talking about the history of anything really meaningless.

Look how PG was going nuts till she found out she had some real history.

[stealthwise]

because these stories are character-based. and if the characters acts true to themselves we will enjoy reading about them, because well, none of the stories are "real". elseworlds sold because it was an odd take of a character even though it had no bearing on continuity.
and there's the hope that any retcon will only serve to make the characters or events more interesting.


ever feel you needed to read all the sherlock holmes books in order so you can put together the continuity? i haven't, and it hasn't hurt my enjoyment of them at all.

The Holmes thing doesn't seem to apply, just as James Bond wouldn't, because those adventures are basically strewn together as separate entities. However, DC and Marvel have gone to the trouble of having a shared universe that has consistently relied on the strength of its continuity in order to draw readers in and tell serial stories.

I wouldn't care about continuity if they didn't try so damn hard to make everything fit together into a tight little box, and then tie all of their books together every time there's a huge "event" that comes along.

But asking us to care about those kinds of stories and that mode of storytelling, is really hard when you're changing things constantly. In this case, it's hard to tell what "acting true to the character even means," given that we have some very, very stupid plot contrivances that effectively destroy characters left, right and centre. I.e. Leslie Tompkins allowing Spoiler to die to teach Batman a lesson, which completely flies in the face of the established character, and which led NOWHERE afterwards.

That's my issue with DC right now, their sense of continuity is out of wack, and in this case, it seems like an easy "all or none" situation. Either use it properly or ditch it completely.

[CBikle]

That's my point, the Monitors and others have knowledge that they are basically a year old in existence. That their whole history is a fraud and newly created.

That would make someone disturbed and talking about the history of anything really meaningless.

Maybe that's why there's so much unrest and anxiety amongst the Monitors ?

Between the shenanigans of the Anti-Monitor, Extant, Alexander Luthor, Mr. Mind, et al, the multiverse is constantly in disarray and puts even the Monitors continued existence in doubt.

The current DC multiverse is one that the Monitors consider a "keeper" and are working (although not in tandem) to maintain the status quo.

It's also possible that the Monitors have always been around and watching all the shifts and changes in the mulltiverse, from outside of it, ala Alex Luthor, Superboy-Prime, etc.

[Miss Kitty Fantastico]

The bigger questions is: If they keep making changes like this, and any particular moment, good or bad, can be retconned away on an editorial whim, then why should we as fans/readers/critics give a holy crap about any of it?
That's a fair question, I think. In my continuing quest to find new heroines to read about, I'm toying with the idea of trying out Birds of Prey - not a title I've looked to previously (no real reason, beyond vague dissatisfaction with the short-lived TV show - and yes, I know they're very different things), but I've been hearing positive talk about it, and goddess knows I need some more DC books to read, with Wonder Woman and Supergirl having gone the way of the dodo. But with the spectre of 'Final Crisis' looming over DC, there's a part of me that wants to wait and see if the Birds of Prey on the shelves in a year or so, once the big crisis has happened, will even be the same book it is now.

One could argue that the issues and trades published are what they are regardless of future events, and that's true... to a point. Thing is, I feel an ongoing series is a different critter to a finite series (even if that series goes for a hundred-something issues) - if I get onto an ongoing title, I'd like to know that it will be ongoing, and that changes from the present status quo will be explained in terms consistent with what I've read, rather than "Whoops, there goes the Monitor War, BoP now consists of Catwoman, Zatanna, a transvestite Ambush Bug, oh and Oracle is now a funky Jamaican woman." An extreme example, I'll grant you (but on the off chance it happens, I am going to claim that I called it; I may well buy it, too), but it's something that's at the back of my mind, influencing my choice of whether to start buying now, or wait and see. It may not be the deciding factor, but the fact that there is this crisis looming - and 'crisis = reboot' isn't that far off the mark, when all's said and done - means it's a consideration moreso than normal.

[mattx110]

The Holmes thing doesn't seem to apply, just as James Bond wouldn't, because those adventures are basically strewn together as separate entities. However, DC and Marvel have gone to the trouble of having a shared universe that has consistently relied on the strength of its continuity in order to draw readers in and tell serial stories.

I wouldn't care about continuity if they didn't try so damn hard to make everything fit together into a tight little box, and then tie all of their books together every time there's a huge "event" that comes along.

But asking us to care about those kinds of stories and that mode of storytelling, is really hard when you're changing things constantly. In this case, it's hard to tell what "acting true to the character even means," given that we have some very, very stupid plot contrivances that effectively destroy characters left, right and centre. I.e. Leslie Tompkins allowing Spoiler to die to teach Batman a lesson, which completely flies in the face of the established character, and which led NOWHERE afterwards.

That's my issue with DC right now, their sense of continuity is out of wack, and in this case, it seems like an easy "all or none" situation. Either use it properly or ditch it completely.

RETCON ALERT: holmes didn't die, he crawled out and nobody noticed, and then lived in mystery until he decided to come out of hiding.

and james bond had a continuity. the novels continued and used pieces from other novels. casino royale is like 1/3rd of a story with random SMERSH agents running around that we don't learn about until from russia with love (i think).

altering a characters history while keeping them the same is one thing. but i think your problem with leslie thompkins is something different. i'm on the same page as you with that. a doctor letting someone die is the same thing as killing them. hence the oath when they become doctors. as a human being she also would never have done that. she only was ever harsh with bruce to help him.

this is where the smaller ongoing titles that don't get caught up in crossovers are for. i don't read any from DC right now so i'm not sure what to recomend, but if there is a good writer on the book, you can guarantee they know the character and weren't just handed a book randomly.

but i think they're experimenting with putting in ideas for future crossover use to avoid having to redo continuity every time they want a universe-shattering crossover. the having a character just reshape continuity to set that up (and then not go through with half the plan, bringing back jason todd and not killing dick grayson) is basically a cheat. i want editors to look for clever solutions to get to their new status quo, not "he punched something, and we can change anything we want in the next 3 years".

also, it's odd because altering continuity and having multiple earths has become a plot point. we've basically entered a harder realm of sci-fi. and when you do that while changing the universe, we're all looking for that big red button that'll change (ie: ruin) the continuity we actually liked.

[stealthwise]

That's a fair question, I think. In my continuing quest to find new heroines to read about, I'm toying with the idea of trying out Birds of Prey - not a title I've looked to previously (no real reason, beyond vague dissatisfaction with the short-lived TV show - and yes, I know they're very different things), but I've been hearing positive talk about it, and goddess knows I need some more DC books to read, with Wonder Woman and Supergirl having gone the way of the dodo. But with the spectre of 'Final Crisis' looming over DC, there's a part of me that wants to wait and see if the Birds of Prey on the shelves in a year or so, once the big crisis has happened, will even be the same book it is now.

One could argue that the issues and trades published are what they are regardless of future events, and that's true... to a point. Thing is, I feel an ongoing series is a different critter to a finite series (even if that series goes for a hundred-something issues) - if I get onto an ongoing title, I'd like to know that it will be ongoing, and that changes from the present status quo will be explained in terms consistent with what I've read, rather than "Whoops, there goes the Monitor War, BoP now consists of Catwoman, Zatanna, a transvestite Ambush Bug, oh and Oracle is now a funky Jamaican woman." An extreme example, I'll grant you (but on the off chance it happens, I am going to claim that I called it; I may well buy it, too), but it's something that's at the back of my mind, influencing my choice of whether to start buying now, or wait and see. It may not be the deciding factor, but the fact that there is this crisis looming - and 'crisis = reboot' isn't that far off the mark, when all's said and done - means it's a consideration moreso than normal.

If you read BoP to follow Gail's work, then don't fear, because she's now done on the book, and from what I read, it was good stuff.

If you read to follow the characters, then I'd probably just wait and see what happens, but likely not even bother, as A) the book will likely be changed due to the Crisis crap, and B) I doubt that it will last more than another year (no offense to incoming writer Sean McKeever).

[lawman]

because these stories are character-based. and if the characters acts true to themselves we will enjoy reading about them, because well, none of the stories are "real". elseworlds sold because it was an odd take of a character even though it had no bearing on continuity.
But Elseworlds worked only because the tales were out of continuity. It would be pretty hard to enjoy most of those stories if we were told they represented the new "reality" for the previously familiar versions of the characters.

For a story to be "character-based" (which far too few comics are; the superhero genre is notoriously plot-driven -- but I digress), the characters have to be defined enough to allow reader identification. But any character is defined by his or her personal history, the events that have shaped his or her life. If the characters don't have any reliable or consistent backstory, then we don't really know enough about them for a story to be based on them, do we?

And comics aren't any less "real" than any other form of fiction. If we're to engage in "willing suspension of disbelief," to pretend they're real long enough to enjoy them, then continuity matters.

ever feel you needed to read all the sherlock holmes books in order so you can put together the continuity? i haven't, and it hasn't hurt my enjoyment of them at all.
Actually, I have. And the impulse is hardly unusual: it's been a preoccupation of a great many Sherlockians for generations now, many far more dedicated than I. Certainly one of the things I love best about William Baring-Gould's classic Annotated Sherlock Holmes isn't the mere reprinting of the stories (you can find those anywhere), it's the effort he puts into establishing historical context and arranging them in sequence, so that one can comprehend a more complete biography of Holmes and Watson than any single story made possible.

So I'm afraid your example is rather poorly chosen. ;) At best all it establishes is that taste is subjective: you may be able to enjoy stories without caring about continuity, but for many others it's essential.

[Kid Kyoto]

There's an old line from HP Lovecraft's horror stories about how if mankind knew the real truth about the world he would go mad, it's only by being willfully blind that we can get through the day.

So I imagine that, like the Psycho Pirate in Animal Man, the asylums of the DCU are filled with people who've figured out the truth and doctors who do their best to ignore them.

[Super Buddies Forever]

This is why I have a problem with most of the characters being aware of the true nature of the first Crisis and now Infinite Crisis. Why doesn't, say, Clark for example, ever just sit back and realize that his childhood has been alterered several times over (and even Birthright came about well before IC)? Wouldn't it cause a family-oriented homebody like Big Blue to freak out knowing that Pa and Ma had been deceased in his "original" timeline, among many things?

It's a story that should be explored one of these days, especially now that the characters seem to be hip to what has happened with the constant shuffling of the cosmos. The only time they were ever self-aware that reality had been altered was Zero Hour, but the changes then were superficial at best. Now they know that their life histories have been yanked out underneath them twice, and could easily happen again the next time some yellow fear monster possesses a Luthor from a parallel dimension.

[mattx110]

But Elseworlds worked only because the tales were out of continuity. It would be pretty hard to enjoy most of those stories if we were told they represented the new "reality" for the previously familiar versions of the characters.

For a story to be "character-based" (which far too few comics are; the superhero genre is notoriously plot-driven -- but I digress), the characters have to be defined enough to allow reader identification. But any character is defined by his or her personal history, the events that have shaped his or her life. If the characters don't have any reliable or consistent backstory, then we don't really know enough about them for a story to be based on them, do we?

And comics aren't any less "real" than any other form of fiction. If we're to engage in "willing suspension of disbelief," to pretend they're real long enough to enjoy them, then continuity matters.


Actually, I have. And the impulse is hardly unusual: it's been a preoccupation of a great many Sherlockians for generations now, many far more dedicated than I. Certainly one of the things I love best about William Baring-Gould's classic Annotated Sherlock Holmes isn't the mere reprinting of the stories (you can find those anywhere), it's the effort he puts into establishing historical context and arranging them in sequence, so that one can comprehend a more complete biography of Holmes and Watson than any single story made possible.

So I'm afraid your example is rather poorly chosen. ;) At best all it establishes is that taste is subjective: you may be able to enjoy stories without caring about continuity, but for many others it's essential.

well, i'm a bit of an oddity in that i don't even read some straightforward prose books in the correct order. dracula is my favorite book basically because you can pick it up at any point and get dragged into the story, i've read it 15 times and there still might be a page or two i've never gotten to.

but in comics, i've given up on continuity largely, even though i do learn every new change and know complete histories of characters i've never read (which i partly don't understand because how do i know about characters i've never seen, it's just odd). i'm also not buying a lot of continuity-relient comics that you might be, so it definitely hits you harder than it does me when they restructure continuity.

but really, the only problem i have, which i think is the root of your problem, is when they cheat. they don't have the proper set up for a story, so they change continuity or ignore it. bring back characters or pretend they were never born, or just ignore the fact that leslie thompkins is a doctor and the nicest woman in the world. you can't feel good about a resolution that ignores the set up.

again i exist in that daredevil, nightwing, iron fist, smaller books, self-contained continuity world for the most part in the last couple years (although i haven't read nightwing in a while but it's a good example when dixon was on it), so i'm unscathed.

[jadrax]

Actually, I have. And the impulse is hardly unusual: it's been a preoccupation of a great many Sherlockians for generations now, many far more dedicated than I. Certainly one of the things I love best about William Baring-Gould's classic Annotated Sherlock Holmes isn't the mere reprinting of the stories (you can find those anywhere), it's the effort he puts into establishing historical context and arranging them in sequence, so that one can comprehend a more complete biography of Holmes and Watson than any single story made possible.

So I'm afraid your example is rather poorly chosen. ;) At best all it establishes is that taste is subjective: you may be able to enjoy stories without caring about continuity, but for many others it's essential.

Worth noting though, the Author didn't actually write the books with any thing but the loosest continuity.

Perhaps the True lesson here is you don't have to worry about continuity when writing, because the fans that care will work out their own.

[lawman]

but really, the only problem i have, which i think is the root of your problem, is when they cheat. they don't have the proper set up for a story, so they change continuity or ignore it. bring back characters or pretend they were never born, or just ignore the fact that leslie thompkins is a doctor and the nicest woman in the world. you can't feel good about a resolution that ignores the set up.
Well, I think we can all agree on that, at least. The recent Martian Manhunter mini-series by Lieberman is a classic example, and one that really ticked me off... it references and relies upon assorted characters and plot points from older MM stories, without so much as bothering to explain them to the reader, but at the same time completely changes Jonn's characterization (for the worse) and alters elements of the backstory at will (e.g., about how Martian shape-changing works, and also about the fire weakness). A major plot point that's never resolved supposedly hinges on the abduction of "Scorch," an obscure character who is never seen on panel nor explained to readers. The villain's motivation ultimately hinges on the actions of Jonn's brother, a character introduced in the (far superior) Ostrander series but never so much as mentioned until the final issue of this mini. All in all, it's a case study in how to use continuity badly, which all too many bad writers are doing these days.

[CBikle]

This is why I have a problem with most of the characters being aware of the true nature of the first Crisis and now Infinite Crisis. Why doesn't, say, Clark for example, ever just sit back and realize that his childhood has been alterered several times over (and even Birthright came about well before IC)? Wouldn't it cause a family-oriented homebody like Big Blue to freak out knowing that Pa and Ma had been deceased in his "original" timeline, among many things?

Except for a few (Psycho-Pirate, Shazam, Harbinger, et al), most of them didn't remember CoIE. There is greater knowledge of the multiverse now, but that was only because of Alexander Luthor, Kal-L and Superboy-Prime reintroducing themselves.

From the few titles I've read, it seems like the existence of the other 51 Earths is now public knowledge, where it wasn't before.

[mattx110]

Well, I think we can all agree on that, at least. The recent Martian Manhunter mini-series by Lieberman is a classic example, and one that really ticked me off... it references and relies upon assorted characters and plot points from older MM stories, without so much as bothering to explain them to the reader, but at the same time completely changes Jonn's characterization (for the worse) and alters elements of the backstory at will (e.g., about how Martian shape-changing works, and also about the fire weakness). A major plot point that's never resolved supposedly hinges on the abduction of "Scorch," an obscure character who is never seen on panel nor explained to readers. The villain's motivation ultimately hinges on the actions of Jonn's brother, a character introduced in the (far superior) Ostrander series but never so much as mentioned until the final issue of this mini. All in all, it's a case study in how to use continuity badly, which all too many bad writers are doing these days.

i'm sure the writer was sitting there writing the story going "this is great, i brought in all this good stuff from the past" without realizing we couldn't read his mind while reading the book.