Mark Gruenwald on Time Travel Rules

[stingerman]

Thought I'd post it considering the other thread (started a new one so others would know):

October, 1992 - Marvel Age#117: Marvel's time travel rules
http://www.geocities.com/mh_prime/9210.html

Time to write another timely installment of MARVEL AGE MAGAZINE's most time-consuming column. My subject this month: (what else?) time. The subject of how the internal passage of time in the pages of Marvel Comics relates to its reders' external experience of time is a subject I've already covered, some time ago (if you'll pardon the expression). This time 'round I want to talk about time travel.

On of the more interesting aspects of my job as Senior Executive Editor is I was the one who got to research, work out, and write up the rules pertaining to time travel in the Marvel Universe for our in-house editors' policy handbook. Before I came on the scene, Marvel-- a publishing outfit which prides itself on its internal consistency-- was a wee bit relaxed when it came to how time travel worked. Writers were free to have it work every which way (including loose) with no regard to what had already been established. Once I was designated consistency cop, it was up to me to develop the rules of M.U. time travel using the consensus of information. It was a job I must admit I relished since, ever since my self-published fanzine days, I was interested in the way fictional realities worked. So, printed here for a general audience for the first time are Marvel's official rules of time travel...

Time travel should be used very sparingly in order to keep the phenomenon as special as possible. To ensure that future usage of the phenomenon are kept consistant with the majority of past usages, observe the following principles:

1. The Marvel Universe is part of a multiverse(a system of related universes) which diverge from one another at critical junctures.

2. The act of time travel always produces a critical juncture diverging a new alternate timeline or world at the moment one enters the reality of another time period, past or future of the time period set out from. It creates one timeline where an extratemporal person or element materialized via time travel, and one 'virgin' timeline where that person or element did not.

3. Because it is impossible to travel to the 'virgin' timeline, and because divergent timelines are dimensionally displaced from one's root timeline, all time travel actually involves dimensional travel. A time traveler does not truly travel straight backwards or forwards in time, but backwards or forwards and a bit off to the side to a divergent timeline now running parallel to one's timeline of origin. Since this timeline will have been identical to the 'virgin' timeline until the moment of divergence, there will be virtually no differences between the two timelines until most time travelers have no reason to be aware that they are not on the 'virgin' timeline.

4. If one travels a second time to an era one has already been to, one will not materialize on the 'virgin' timeline nor the timeline diverged by one's previous trip, but a third timeline diverged from one or the other. A time traveler can never travel back to the exact same timeline more than once. Again, since the second and third divergent timelines are identical until the time traveler's arrival, they will be indistinguishable at first.

5. When one travels a second time to any era in which one already exists, it will be possible to meet a temporal counterpart of one's self already there. A new counterpart diverges into being every single time a time traveler travels to a timeline one already exists in. Subsequently, multiple temporal counterparts could co-exist through multiple time trips to the same time period.

6. The co-existence of mulitple counterparts of the same being on one timeline does not cause time paradoxes. Time paradoxes are only possible in single timeline universes.

7. Altering an incident in the past will indeed affect the future reality of the timeline diverged by the time traveler's presence. One can create any number of different divergencies by one's significant actions, the act of time travel being but the first. Whether one will be able to return to the present of the timeline where one did no reality-tampering divergences or one which diverged as a consequence of one's past actions is a function of the means of time travel.

8. Returning to one's present also creates a divergent reality. If one has been gone any length of time, one may find differences have accumulated in accordance with the length of time one was away.

9. Selective alterations in the present as a consequence of the time traveler's actions in the past do not occur. An alteration in the past will create an entirely new timeline with events proceeding smoothly from the point of divergence. To the denzins of that timeline's 'present', the past is a continuous series of events that always happened as they happened. Were one to see selective dematerializations, they would either be caused by something other than the act of time travel unto itself or would be hallucinations.

10. There are three possible methods of time travel in the Marvel Universe: a. Time travel machines(Dr. Doom, Kang). b. Magic(Dr. Strange, Thor's hammer). c. Personally generated energy(Silver Surfer).

All methods involve generating 'chronal displacement inerita' freeing one's chronological position in the timestream(just as escape velocity frees one from earth's gravitation), skimming through the extra-temporal realm outside the timestream(Limbo), and re-entering the timestream at another chronological position. Because no time exists outside the timestream, the perceived duration of the passage through limbo may be anything from non-existant to an eternity.

11. If any of the above is confusing to you or your writers, you may ask the Senior Executive Editor for clarification. If it still is confusing, you should not be doing a time travel story. The above principles only apply to the Marvel Universe; other fictional realities may have other rules of time travel.

That's it, the full text of the Time Travel section in the Marvel editors' handbook. Despite the occasional technical term or two, this is as clear and most straightforward I can be on this admittedly difficult subject. Like any set of rules, they can be perceived as stifling, depending on a writer's mindset. Some writers are in love with the idea of paradox and keep thinking they've discovered a new paradox so cool it deserves to be put in a Marvel mag. Personally, I find the rules reassuring, but I'm a wee bit prejudiced. I've done a few stories involving time travel, including one in two of this summer's annuals (no plug allowed), and I find the guidelines both easy and fun to work within.

Okay, folks, time to get out of here. Till next time, watch those divergences!

-- Mark Gruenwald

[Cthulhudrew]

Interesting, and obviously useful as a guideline, but again- it doesn't exactly cover all the different Marvel stories that have involved time travel. Notably, how to rectify the Mockingbird-Kills-Ghost Rider story under these rules? (You really can't.)

Similarly, the Uncanny X-Men #191 time travel story- under the Gru rules- would mean that every story set in the Marvel universe post-191 is set in an alternate timeline from the 616 verse. (Although Gru did attempt to explain away the story as written, IIRC, in either Magik's OHOTMU entry or somewhere else).

[XPac]

I wonder if McDuffie read this before he ended his FF run.

[Joe Acro]

I appreciate the effort to keep it consistent (though it went against prior stories and wasn't perfectly handled while in effect), but I have two big concerns: no one could travel back into their own timeline at all and that it doesn't adequately explain how time travelers can get back to their futures a short span after leaving.

[psm]

Really don't see the point. What difference if the rules for time travel in the MU aren't consistent (which they haven't been in the past anyway)? Time travel is not used that often and I've never seen anyone complain that it works differently from story to story. It certainly doesn't need 11 rules that take up 2-3 pages.

[Joe Acro]

Really don't see the point. What difference if the rules for time travel in the MU aren't consistent (which they haven't been in the past anyway)?I don't see the difference between time travel consistency and character consistency.

[psm]

I don't see the difference between time travel consistency and character consistency.

Thats unfortunate for you. Luckily, they're not even in the same ball park for me.

[Expletive Deleted]

I don't see the difference between time travel consistency and character consistency.They're not different, but I tend to think that one is significantly more important.

[Joe Acro]

They're not different, but I tend to think that one is significantly more important.
I'll agree with you there.

[agrich]

I think it's reasonable to ask one writer to have a decent amount of respect for the character as he or she was written in the past. If the writer's going to dramatically change an established character, you have to either be able to get there logically -- or just use a different character (or create a new one).

In contrast, why should one writer's idea of how time travel should work be respected? It's a pretty big area that fantasy and science fiction writers have always had different ideas about. To tell Mark Waid that he should adhere to time travel rules established by Chris Claremont doesn't make much sense. It would really limit stories and ideas.

To me that's a lot different than saying if Stan Lee wrote Dr. Doom as hating Reed Richards, future writers should respect that when using the character in their stories. (Unless they can logically get him to a point where he doesn't.)

[XPac]

Really don't see the point. What difference if the rules for time travel in the MU aren't consistent (which they haven't been in the past anyway)? Time travel is not used that often and I've never seen anyone complain that it works differently from story to story. It certainly doesn't need 11 rules that take up 2-3 pages.

I think the point is to try and create some nice ground rules so there's a bit more consistancy, and things for the readers make more sense.

It's hardly a cardinal sin if someone does something different. No rule is set in stone. But I nonetheless feel if more writers cared as much as Gruenwald, a lot of things in marvel would gel together so much better.

[psm]

I think the point is to try and create some nice ground rules so there's a bit more consistency, and things for the readers make more sense.

It's hardly a cardinal sin if someone does something different. No rule is set in stone. But I nonetheless feel if more writers cared as much as Gruenwald, a lot of things in marvel would gel together so much better.

Yes, but where does it stop? I understand the concept of consistency but when its used for such a small piece of minutia (and in my opinion it is quite small) it starts to hamper the ability of writers to tell stories. When such focus is given to details like this the writer/editor now must waste time and effort to change aspects of a story that in no way enhance it. Why would you encourage something like that?

Until these rules where shown did you know that they ever existed? I didn't. Does it change anything? For me as a reader it doesn't and I am glad that they are ignored. I could care less if one story time travel has a certain affect and in another it acts differently as long as they are explained coherently in both stories. Now this might bother you. If thats the case then we will never see eye to eye. Which wouldn't be much of a surprise considering how many other things we disagree upon.

And as much as I admire Gruenwald, I always felt his greatest mistake (and Roy Thomas falls under this category) was he would always try to make his plots fit continuity even at the expense of the story. I don't want to see the current writers subscribe to that mentality again.

[psm]

Agrich, I absolutely agree with everything you said.

[XPac]

Yes, but where does it stop? I understand the concept of consistency but when its used for such a small piece of minutia (and in my opinion it is quite small) it starts to hamper the ability of writers to tell stories. When such focus is given to details like this the writer/editor now must waste time and effort to change aspects of a story that in no way enhance it. Why would you encourage something like that?

Until these rules where shown did you know that they ever existed? I didn't. Does it change anything? For me as a reader it doesn't and I am glad that they are ignored. I could care less if one story time travel has a certain affect and in another it acts differently as long as they are explained coherently in both stories. Now this might bother you. If thats the case then we will never see eye to eye. Which wouldn't be much of a surprise considering how many other things we disagree upon.

And as much as I admire Gruenwald, I always felt his greatest mistake (and Roy Thomas falls under this category) was he would always try to make his plots fit continuity even at the expense of the story. I don't want to see the current writers subscribe to that mentality again.

Where does it stop? Simple... it stops when the rules prevent someone from telling the story they want to tell. Again, these aren't editoral mandates. They're not rules etched in stone.

They're simply there to remind other writers of what was shown in the past. They're useful guidelines for trying to create some consistancy. And consistancy by itself isn't a bad thing, because it aids in making things make more sense.

If someone needs to break from what's shown in the past, it's not a cardinal sin. Do what you need to do in order to tell the story you want. But there is value in having a consistant universe whenever it's possible, and someone like Gruenwald coming up with guidelines like this can be helpful in doing so. Retcons and changes happen all the time in comics... that doesn't mean there isn't value in knowing what has happened in the past.

[psm]

Where does it stop? Simple... it stops when the rules prevent someone from telling the story they want to tell. Again, these aren't editoral mandates. They're not rules etched in stone.

They're simply there to remind other writers of what was shown in the past. They're useful guidelines for trying to create some consistency. And consistency by itself isn't a bad thing, because it aids in making things make more sense.

If someone needs to break from what's shown in the past, it's not a cardinal sin. Do what you need to do in order to tell the story you want. But there is value in having a consistent universe whenever it's possible, and someone like Gruenwald coming up with guidelines like this can be helpful in doing so.

Then why have them in the first place? If anyone can ignore them (and often do) what's the point of keeping them.

Plus, why should time travel work in that manner? Who dictates that those rules of time travel are the "correct" rules. Honestly I don't see how having writers obey rules that only the most hardcore reader would now about and nobody would care about would help at all. Its a hindrance with no upside.

[XPac]

Then why have them in the first place? If anyone can ignore them (and often do) what's the point of keeping them.

Plus, why should time travel work in that manner? Who dictates that those rules of time travel are the "correct" rules. Honestly I don't see how having writers obey rules that only the most hardcore reader would now about and nobody would care about would help at all. Its a hindrance with no upside.

Because again, there's value in having consistansy whenever possible. If a character has black hair last time we saw him, it's probably a good idea to show him having black hair the next time unless there's a particular reason to make him a blonde.

As for who dictates the rules... it's simply a matter of creating rules based on what has happened in the past. When different rules start applying, it can potentially confuse readers. So it's reasonable to argue that it should be avoided if possible. If it's not possible to tell the story that you want without changing the rules, then change the rules... but if you can tell it while still keeping some consistansy it makes things easier to understand.

Again, you're looking at them as a hindurance when really they're nothing more than a helpful tool for those who choose to make things a bit more insync with what we've seen in the past.

[Shellhead]

Then why have them in the first place? If anyone can ignore them (and often do) what's the point of keeping them.

Plus, why should time travel work in that manner? Who dictates that those rules of time travel are the "correct" rules. Honestly I don't see how having writers obey rules that only the most hardcore reader would now about and nobody would care about would help at all. Its a hindrance with no upside.

If the editors aren't going to enforce any kind of consistency, then both readers and creators would be better served by a complete lack of continuity. Either no crossover between any titles, or just completely ignore the past and make every story arc stand alone. But so far, the Marvel Universe has been treated as a shared setting, containing a shared group of characters, with an existing history and sets of relationships. Of course, there have been aberrations (Teen Tony, Onslaught, the current Black Panther run) that could have been avoided if editors had been more active.

[psm]

Because again, there's value in having consistency whenever possible. If a character has black hair last time we saw him, it's probably a good idea to show him having black hair the next time unless there's a particular reason to make him a blonde.

As for who dictates the rules... it's simply a matter of creating rules based on what has happened in the past. When different rules start applying, it can potentially confuse readers. So it's reasonable to argue that it should be avoided if possible. If it's not possible to tell the story that you want without changing the rules, then change the rules... but if you can tell it while still keeping some consistansy it makes things easier to understand.

Again, you're looking at them as a hindurance when really they're nothing more than a helpful tool for those who choose to make things a bit more insync with what we've seen in the past.

Okay, we are just going around in circles, saying the same things. You think having time travel rules are good. You think it adds consistency. I think its a waste of time and doesn't add anything because nobody really cares because it's so minute.

[XPac]

Okay, we are just going around in circles, saying the same things. You think having time travel rules are good. You think it adds consistency. I think its a waste of time and doesn't add anything because nobody really cares because it's so minute.

But the fact that we both feel differently about it just illustrates my point.

If a writer feels the same way I do, then the guidelines are there to help me. If a writer feels the same way you do, they can be ignored and they cause no hindurance at all.

There's simply there as tools for those that choose to use them. That's it. It's not the big deal you're making them out to be.

[psm]

If the editors aren't going to enforce any kind of consistency, then both readers and creators would be better served by a complete lack of continuity. Either no crossover between any titles, or just completely ignore the past and make every story arc stand alone. But so far, the Marvel Universe has been treated as a shared setting, containing a shared group of characters, with an existing history and sets of relationships. Of course, there have been aberrations (Teen Tony, Onslaught, the current Black Panther run) that could have been avoided if editors had been more active.

Nobody is saying that consistency shouldn't be enforced. I'm certainly not saying that and I don't know why you think I am. I just think its pointless to enforce rules of consistency regarding time travel.

[Cthulhudrew]

Speaking of time travel anomalies (not that we necessarily were)- haven't King Solomon's Frogs violated the time travel rules at times?

See, I'm kind of on the fence. I like Gru's rules- as a set of general guidelines- but at the same time it doesn't seem that they actually cover all circumstances that might arise, and in some cases limit storytelling opportunities. At the very least, they cause problems with stories that came before they were laid down as the "rules", such as- how do they apply to characters like the Two-Gun Kid- who have traveled to their own "futures" but have also been visited in the past by 616 characters like Hawkeye, and retain knowledge and memory of both events, and have actual historical records about them?

[XPac]

Nobody is saying that consistency shouldn't be enforced. I'm certainly not saying that and I don't know why you think I am. I just think its pointless to enforce rules of consistency regarding time travel.

But no one is enforcing them. That's the part you're kind of missing here. Gruewald did't go over to a writers house and beat them everytime they defied on of his rules.

[Expletive Deleted]

But no one is enforcing them.Isn't the implication here that the editors are "supposed to be" enforcing them?

[XPac]

Isn't the implication here that the editors are "supposed to be" enforcing them?

Not exactly. Retcons and changes happen all the time. And that readily applies to time travel rules.

There's a balancing act. You want to give the writers some flexibility to tell the stories they want, while still trying to create some semblance of common sense and consistancy. When you're dealing with decades worth of stories, you need to be flexible to a degree when necessary. How flexible is TOO flexible is a matter of opinion I suppose.

[psm]

But no one is enforcing them. That's the part you're kind of missing here. Gruewald did't go over to a writers house and beat them everytime they defied on of his rules.

You sure? It says in the article that he created the rules to be added in the in-house editor's policy handbook. I'm assuming they were enforced.

[XPac]

You sure? It says in the article that he created the rules to be added in the in-house editor's policy handbook. I'm assuming they were enforced.

If you've read enough time travel stories in marvel, you'd know that they obviously weren't.

[gorthon616]

Yes, but where does it stop? I understand the concept of consistency but when its used for such a small piece of minutia (and in my opinion it is quite small) it starts to hamper the ability of writers to tell stories. When such focus is given to details like this the writer/editor now must waste time and effort to change aspects of a story that in no way enhance it. Why would you encourage something like that?

Until these rules where shown did you know that they ever existed? I didn't. Does it change anything? For me as a reader it doesn't and I am glad that they are ignored. I could care less if one story time travel has a certain affect and in another it acts differently as long as they are explained coherently in both stories. Now this might bother you. If thats the case then we will never see eye to eye. Which wouldn't be much of a surprise considering how many other things we disagree upon.

And as much as I admire Gruenwald, I always felt his greatest mistake (and Roy Thomas falls under this category) was he would always try to make his plots fit continuity even at the expense of the story. I don't want to see the current writers subscribe to that mentality again.

My main argument against the crux of what you're saying is that if a creator is complaining that they can't work their story within given framework (in this case time travel rules), then frankly that is a failing of the creator not the framework.

Not to say that "failing" is a bad things, sometimes a story just won't work no matter how good the creator is and we have non-cannon stuff to support that all the time.

I'm also not arguing to that the rule is good or bad, I'm simply saying... give me a break man. Don't give me garbage about a writer not being able to tell a good story because they have to obey time travel rules. If he can't handle that, then that's his problem.

There are tons of people who can write time travel stories within those rules that can tell good stories, and there are tons of people who tell stories outside those rules that tell bad stories. When you're talking about creating these rules you're talking about creating a larger picture, a universe (multiverse technically) where each story is giving more layers to it, rather than merely carving out a piece of it and stealing it away. There's a give and take to that, but that's NOT an issue of whether the stories are good or bad, but what KIND of stories you want to be telling.

[psm]

If you've read enough time travel stories in marvel, you'd know that they obviously weren't.

Actually, I don't know. During that time the editors may have very likely enforced the rules. I'm not up on every appearance of time travel during the period. I'm not even sure what time period that is to be quite honest.

[psm]

My main argument against the crux of what you're saying is that if a creator is complaining that they can't work their story within given framework (in this case time travel rules), then frankly that is a failing of the creator not the framework.

Never, said the writer couldn't work within the framework. I'm sure any writer would be able to alter their story to adjust it to the time travel guidelines. I said they would be hampered. They would have to go back change what was needed to make it work for no particular gain. Why worry about something so infinitesimal when their time could used on more important aspects of a story? To me it's consistency just for consistency's sake. But that's my take.

[Joe Acro]

In contrast, why should one writer's idea of how time travel should work be respected? It's a pretty big area that fantasy and science fiction writers have always had different ideas about. To tell Mark Waid that he should adhere to time travel rules established by Chris Claremont doesn't make much sense. It would really limit stories and ideas.

To me that's a lot different than saying if Stan Lee wrote Dr. Doom as hating Reed Richards, future writers should respect that when using the character in their stories. (Unless they can logically get him to a point where he doesn't.)It's not a matter of respecting one writer's idea of time travel. It's a matter of setting a set of guidelines that everyone has to play in.

Think of it this way. There are generic physics even comics abide by. Now, what if, for whatever reason, someone decided to just ignore that particular detail? What if cars were flying the background, as opposed to driving along the ground? Wouldn't you find that to be problem?

Sure, you might like to tell a story where the hero goes hopping from car to car in the sky, but the writer can't do it because that's not the way the universe works. So, it's the same with time travel. A writer is (or at least was) limited to a set notion of time travel. And, in particular, the type of time travel that allows for the most leniency. Want someone to travel from the past to the future to hang out for a while? Pull him from an alternate past. Want to go into the future yourself? Throw yourself into an alternate timeline.

About the only thing you can't do is change reality.

They would have to go back change what was needed to make it work for no particular gain. Why worry about something so infinitesimal when their time could used on more important aspects of a story? To me it's consistency just for consistency's sake. But that's my take.They wouldn't necessarily have to change it. The editor could do it for him (it might not take much, depending).

And what other "infinitesimal" aspects of the story do you want ignored? Someone's costume changing between panels? The sky being colored green? A dropped "e" in "the"?

[psm]

They wouldn't necessarily have to change it. The editor could do it for him (it might not take much, depending).

And what other "infinitesimal" aspects of the story do you want ignored? Someone's costume changing between panels? The sky being colored green? A dropped "e" in "the"?

Even if it didn't involve the writer its still using the editor's time. Which I'm sure the writer would enjoy so very much.

And what do publishing mistakes have to do with arbitrary guidelines for time travel? They are not even the same thing. How does anything I say morph into removing the editor from his duties.

[agrich]

It's not a matter of respecting one writer's idea of time travel. It's a matter of setting a set of guidelines that everyone has to play in.

Think of it this way. There are generic physics even comics abide by. Now, what if, for whatever reason, someone decided to just ignore that particular detail? What if cars were flying the background, as opposed to driving along the ground? Wouldn't you find that to be problem?

Sure, you might like to tell a story where the hero goes hopping from car to car in the sky, but the writer can't do it because that's not the way the universe works. So, it's the same with time travel. A writer is (or at least was) limited to a set notion of time travel.

My main argument against the crux of what you're saying is that if a creator is complaining that they can't work their story within given framework (in this case time travel rules), then frankly that is a failing of the creator not the framework.

The problem I have with what both of you are saying is that time travel is an area where if you introduce certain set rules, you cut off -- depending on how you look at it -- a huge amount of stories and eliminate a lot of the drama no matter how good the writer is.

Let's say Marvel declares a mandate that you can't actually change the future by going into the past. That every time you go into the past, you create an alternate future.

If that's a rule, then no matter how good the writer is, doesn't that hurt the drama of a time travel story? If I know that such and such character can't actually change anything in our reality by going into the past, I'm going to be a lot less invested in the story. And if that were a rule in science fiction, we'd have lost a lot of really good time travel stories, right?

Not to drift over into Star Trek territory, but let's take that classic City on the Edge of Forever episode. Wouldn't it lose a little drama if you knew that it wouldn't even be POSSIBLE for Kirk to keep Joan Collins from getting hit by a truck? I mean, if Marvel makes a mandate that you can't change the past, period, it's going to prevent the best of writers from doing some wild and wacky things -- because we'll know going in that it's not going to affect anything, 'cause Quesada says it can't.

As for the example of physics, here's the problem I have with that example. A car driving on the ground is a real-world occurrence that we all accept. Time travel, though, is an unreal, science fiction concept -- and I at least can accept different creators having different ideas of how it should be. Here's a comparison: In the real world, pretty much everyone who gets exposed to massive doses of radiation gets cancer and dies. In comic books, some people turn into massive green monsters, some turn invisible or can stretch really far, etc. You wouldn't ask everyone who gets struck by cosmic rays to be affected the same way, would you?

If you can suspend belief in that regard, I don't see why it's so hard to accept that using Dr. Doom's time machine creates one set of time travel rules and using Thanos' has entirely different results.

[Joe Acro]

And what do publishing mistakes have to do with arbitrary guidelines for time travel? They are not even the same thing. How does anything I say morph into removing the editor from his duties.You declared time travel to be an "infinitesimal" concern. I was offering some other examples of obvious mistakes or errors that are inconsistent with other areas, other items an editor is responsible for catching. It's a shared universe. Things should work the same way.


If that's a rule, then no matter how good the writer is, doesn't that hurt the drama of a time travel story?It depends. What if you aren't aware of the mandate in place? Does that change your perception? What if the story is still able to give off the feel of changing history without history actually being changed?

I mean, if Marvel makes a mandate that you can't change the past, period, it's going to prevent the best of writers from doing some wild and wacky things...It might. Have some Marvel stories in mind?

You wouldn't ask everyone who gets struck by cosmic rays to be affected the same way, would you? No, but I would ask that they get affected in similar ways. If there's a precedent set that characters receive powers from a certain type of cosmic rays (like the ones the FF hit), then whenever any writer has any character get hit by those rays, they should get powers, too. They don't have to be the same powers, just like how time travel doesn't take you to the same reality.

Now, there are exceptions to that parallel, of course, because there are other variables. (What if the hero is in space without a suit and can't breath?)

If you can suspend belief in that regard, I don't see why it's so hard to accept that using Dr. Doom's time machine creates one set of time travel rules and using Thanos' has entirely different results.It's not hard. I just don't like the rules of the game changing while I watch the match.

[gorthon616]

Never, said the writer couldn't work within the framework. I'm sure any writer would be able to alter their story to adjust it to the time travel guidelines. I said they would be hampered. They would have to go back change what was needed to make it work for no particular gain. Why worry about something so infinitesimal when their time could used on more important aspects of a story? To me it's consistency just for consistency's sake. But that's my take.

If it's infintisimal and it's doable, aren't they really just whining then? What's the point in "not" doing it other than the artist being stubborn? I guess you say it's "consistency for consistency's sake" (which makes perfect sense to me), but to me it's writer's being difficult and self-absorbed (i.e. I gotta do things my way and I don't play ball with your rules) for the sake of assuaging writer's laziness.

And by the way if you are saying the writer is "hampered" then you are saying that they can't work within the guidelines. Because if there work is suffering for it, then clearly they aren't "working" within the guidelines.

[XPac]

Just to add... sometimes adding guidelines can make it easier to write.

I've heard Joe Q and Bendis argue before that Dr. Strange is difficult to write because there are no boundries or guidelines for magic. I've heard the DC people at panels argue that they're in the process of creating guildelines for magic in the DC so that they can better writer stories for it.

The same an be said for time travel to some degree. Or maybe not. I suppose it depends on the writer and the story that's being told. But at least in some cases guidelines can be helpful.

[psm]

You declared time travel to be an "infinitesimal" concern. I was offering some other examples of obvious mistakes or errors that are inconsistent with other areas, other items an editor is responsible for catching. It's a shared universe. Things should work the same way.


You are actually stating that one version of time travel is correct but the other is not. So, any time a writer or editor don't follow the guidelines it's an "error". To you its the same thing as a mis-colored costume?

I completely, whole-heartedly, disagree with your premise. Since time travel is a science fiction concept each creator's version of it should be just as valid.

[Joe Acro]

I've heard Joe Q and Bendis argue before that Dr. Strange is difficult to write because there are no boundries or guidelines for magic.Strange used to have guidelines, though, right?

I think they just vanished slowly over time.

You are actually stating that one version of time travel is correct but the other is not. So, any time a writer or editor don't follow the guidelines it's an "error". To you its the same thing as a mis-colored costume?If there were an editorial practice regarding time travel, yes I would consider a story that does not meet the standard as flawed as one that includes a mis-colored costume.

Since time travel is a science fiction concept each creator's version of it should be just as valid.Aren't the super-heroes themselves science-fiction concepts? How about the various technologies comics have, especially those in space titles? Should those be open to interpretation simply because they don't exist in reality?

[psm]

If it's infinitesimal and it's doable, aren't they really just whining then? What's the point in "not" doing it other than the artist being stubborn? I guess you say it's "consistency for consistency's sake" (which makes perfect sense to me), but to me it's writer's being difficult and self-absorbed (i.e. I gotta do things my way and I don't play ball with your rules) for the sake of assuaging writer's laziness.

So if the fans can't accept an alternative version of time travel, isn't it just the fans whining? I mean if you can't enjoy a story because its time travel has a different effect, aren't we just being close minded. Plus, why should the writer be forced into it? Time travel doesn't really exist. It has no physical or logical context except for traveling in time. How ever a writer imagines it works is just as valid. They shouldn't have to change there work for something that doesn't improve the story. It's a waste of time.

And by the way if you are saying the writer is "hampered" then you are saying that they can't work within the guidelines. Because if there work is suffering for it, then clearly they aren't "working" within the guidelines.

Honestly, I don't even know what you are trying to say. If a writer has to rework his story to take in account time travel rules, wouldn't you consider it hampering?

[gorthon616]

The problem I have with what both of you are saying is that time travel is an area where if you introduce certain set rules, you cut off -- depending on how you look at it -- a huge amount of stories and eliminate a lot of the drama no matter how good the writer is.

Welcome to a continuous universe.

Let's say Marvel declares a mandate that you can't actually change the future by going into the past. That every time you go into the past, you create an alternate future.

If that's a rule, then no matter how good the writer is, doesn't that hurt the drama of a time travel story? If I know that such and such character can't actually change anything in our reality by going into the past, I'm going to be a lot less invested in the story. And if that were a rule in science fiction, we'd have lost a lot of really good time travel stories, right?

If there are no rules and we have "created" a new future, who is to say that it is the "new future"? It may just be a bald assertion that one story presents. Doesn't that take away this new future that is created by the fact that there is no extrinsic verification of it?

Not to drift over into Star Trek territory, but let's take that classic City on the Edge of Forever episode. Wouldn't it lose a little drama if you knew that it wouldn't even be POSSIBLE for Kirk to keep Joan Collins from getting hit by a truck? I mean, if Marvel makes a mandate that you can't change the past, period, it's going to prevent the best of writers from doing some wild and wacky things -- because we'll know going in that it's not going to affect anything, 'cause Quesada says it can't.

I have no idea what that story is about so I can't comment on that.

As for the example of physics, here's the problem I have with that example. A car driving on the ground is a real-world occurrence that we all accept. Time travel, though, is an unreal, science fiction concept -- and I at least can accept different creators having different ideas of how it should be. Here's a comparison: In the real world, pretty much everyone who gets exposed to massive doses of radiation gets cancer and dies. In comic books, some people turn into massive green monsters, some turn invisible or can stretch really far, etc. You wouldn't ask everyone who gets struck by cosmic rays to be affected the same way, would you?

Frankly, I wouldn't ming there being a logic behind how the interactions work. But to the point, the difference between those is that they are either random or experimental in nature. So random in, random out. And yeah I can buy that. If it was "we've created a procedure that does X" and it ends up being random, then no I don't buy that. Unless it's played as an "opps that was an accident" type thing.

The problem with the analogy is that while we don't jump in time, we do travel in time. We do see our actions in the past naturally having a consequential pattern in some rational (though perhaps too complex for us to readily understand) way. I mean, if I shoot the last panda on the face of the planet, I expect there not to be any more freaking pandas on the planet. If there is a panda walking around having a beer then I'd want an explanation.

On the other hand most people (and yes we do argue these things when they come up), don't have a conception of "radiation" or "cosmic rays" so we don't have any normal experience of expectation. We DO have a normal experience of linear progression that 'causes us to want to understand what's going on.

The reason why time travel stories are more confusing than other stories is because we TRY to make sense of them in a rational way, a way that we don't try to understand cosmic radiation or genetic mutation or super robotics.

If you can suspend belief in that regard, I don't see why it's so hard to accept that using Dr. Doom's time machine creates one set of time travel rules and using Thanos' has entirely different results.

That's an entirely different concept. I never argued for Gruenwald's rules. (And I think that's really what you're arguing against so perhaps some of these points aren't properly clashing) I merely am arguing against Time Travel Anarchytm. There must be rules. Now if Doom's works one way and Thanos' work the other way. That's fine. But if it's every particular instance of time travel works in it's own random way, then that's not fine. I'm fine with the ability to change, but I'd would like a framework for what can and what can't change the future, rather than it merely being up to the writers momentary whim.

[Joe Acro]

I never argued for Gruenwald's rules. (And I think that's really what you're arguing against so perhaps some of these points aren't properly clashing) I merely am arguing against Time Travel Anarchytm. There must be rules. Now if Doom's works one way and Thanos' work the other way. That's fine. But if it's every particular instance of time travel works in it's own random way, then that's not fine. I'm fine with the ability to change, but I'd would like a framework for what can and what can't change the future, rather than it merely being up to the writers momentary whim.
I think we're on the same page, gorthon. I really do.

That was said excellently.

[psm]

Strange used to have guidelines, though, right?

I think they just vanished slowly over time.

Isn't magic a large part of a Dr. Strange comic? To tell his story doesn't the writer need to define the context of his world and how magic works. I'm talking about something much smaller in terms of importance. Time travel stories are rare. Guidelines aren't needed because they add nothing.

If there were an editorial practice regarding time travel, yes I would consider a story that does not meet the standard as flawed as one that includes a mis-colored costume.

I have nothing to say. I can't even begin to tell you how much I disagree.

Aren't the super-heroes themselves science-fiction concepts? How about the various technologies comics have, especially those in space titles? Should those be open to interpretation simply because they don't exist in reality?

Aren't they already? I'm seen the rules for Drax/Kang/Nebula/Quantum Bands/Nova Force change. I'm don't think any of it hurt the concepts or comics.

[XPac]

So if the fans can't accept an alternative version of time travel, isn't it just the fans whining? I mean if you can't enjoy a story because its time travel has a different effect, aren't we just being close minded. Plus, why should the writer be forced into it? Time travel doesn't really exist. It has no physical or logical context except for traveling in time. How ever a writer imagines it works is just as valid. They shouldn't have to change there work for something that doesn't improve the story. It's a waste of time.



Just because something is fictiona doesn't mean it can't have rules though.

Gamma radiated giants don't really exist, but somewhere along the line someone decided that Hulk gets stronger when he gets angry. If a writer decides the Hulk should get stronger of he feels bored or something, should the editors step in? Or is that hampering a writers creativity? Depends on the situation.. but I think the point is that once rules have been established there's at least potential confusion of someone conflicts that.

Time travel is ouf course a lesser issue to the rules that govern Hulk, therefore there's likely far more flexibility on the part of the writers since clearly time travel rules change when needed. But the point is that pure science fiction can be governed by some rules.

[psm]

Just to add... sometimes adding guidelines can make it easier to write.

I've heard Joe Q and Bendis argue before that Dr. Strange is difficult to write because there are no boundries or guidelines for magic. I've heard the DC people at panels argue that they're in the process of creating guildelines for magic in the DC so that they can better writer stories for it.

The same an be said for time travel to some degree. Or maybe not. I suppose it depends on the writer and the story that's being told. But at least in some cases guidelines can be helpful.

I don't think anyone is arguing against guidelines. If thats what you guys believe then you have not read anything I've written. Of course guidelines are important, even necessary in many areas. The genre itself is composed of numerous assumptions as are most character concepts. However, having guidelines for everything no matter how small or unimportant is pointless. Now, if there was a series where time travel is important then fine, set up some context. Exiles and Excalibur both did. But having a once every ten years story about the Avengers jumping back into time its not needed.

[Joe Acro]

Time travel stories are rare.I don't see it that way. The FF just had a story with a time-traveling Doom. Time travel played a part in Messiah Complex. DC has a whole title devoted to the concept in Booster Gold.

I know from past experience (as I was very observant of them for a time--a several-month period about two years ago) that time travel stories pop up quite often.

I have nothing to say. I can't even begin to tell you how much I disagree. And that's fine.

Aren't they already? I'm seen the rules for Drax/Kang/Nebula/Quantum Bands/Nova Force change. I'm don't think any of it hurt the concepts or comics.Some of those examples don't work for me, but I would say that Nebula's nature (maybe established after conflicting information?) is that she is a mystery. As for Kang, his story is convoluted. I don't know if his complicated background hurts his story, but it certainly makes me stay away from things with him in them.

Be that as it may, yes, characters do change. Yes, origins are expanded upon (or, hell, even changed, but that might be a separate debate). But often fans complain when contradictions arise. Just look at some of the complaints regarding Annihilation: Conquest and the Phalanx. There are rules to how some characters and objects work. Changing or breaking such rules without explanation leads to confusion.

[gorthon616]

So if the fans can't accept an alternative version of time travel, isn't it just the fans whining? I mean if you can't enjoy a story because its time travel has a different effect, aren't we just being close minded. Plus, why should the writer be forced into it? Time travel doesn't really exist. It has no physical or logical context except for traveling in time. How ever a writer imagines it works is just as valid. They shouldn't have to change there work for something that doesn't improve the story. It's a waste of time.

We're fans. We're consumers. We're the ones paying for this. It's our JOB to whine when we're unhappy, and it's their job to deliver. It's our job to say, "hey this doesn't make any sense. why doesn't this make any sense? make this make sense." Perhaps whining is a bit strong of a word (and by perhaps I mean was a bit strong), but if your standard for them is "all things are secondary to telling the story" then I wouldn't want them dealing with established property in a continuous universe. There are characters, histories, and pre-established continuity that these writers get to play with, I don't think it's that uncalled for for them to respect that.

And some don't want to, and they go elsewhere. More power to them. But I don't have very much sympathy if they were expecting the universe to bend to their whims whenever they decided "things should work out like this."

Honestly, I don't even know what you are trying to say. If a writer has to rework his story to take in account time travel rules, wouldn't you consider it hampering?

You said "I'm not saying they can't work within the guidelines, I'm saying that they are hampered by it" or something like that. I'm saying if they are hampered by it, then to me that means that they can't work within those guidelines. It's sort of like a writer is like, I can't write a story that is all ages appropriate. I just have to have this Armadillo orgy scene here. Well... you know, maybe it's just not their forte or whatever. But the simple fact is that they can't deliver on the story.

[XPac]

I don't think anyone is arguing against guidelines. If thats what you guys believe then you have not read anything I've written. Of course guidelines are important, even necessary in many areas. The genre itself is composed of numerous assumptions as are most character concepts. However, having guidelines for everything no matter how small or unimportant is pointless. Now, if there was a series where time travel is important then fine, set up some context. Exiles and Excalibur both did. But having a once every ten years story about the Avengers jumping back into time its not needed.

I did read what you said... specifically in context to your statement that time travel doesn't exist and every writers take is valid. Again, a lot of things in comic books don't actually exist. That doesn't mean that writers can neceessarily do whatever the heck they want.

[agrich]

I merely am arguing against Time Travel Anarchytm. There must be rules. Now if Doom's works one way and Thanos' work the other way. That's fine. But if it's every particular instance of time travel works in it's own random way, then that's not fine.

If we're OK with that, then we're probably pretty much on the same page, too. I'm with you on not having anarchy, I just want writers to have some flexibility in which to throw some surprises in there.

[psm]

Just because something is fictiona doesn't mean it can't have rules though.

Gamma radiated giants don't really exist, but somewhere along the line someone decided that Hulk gets stronger when he gets angry. If a writer decides the Hulk should get stronger of he feels bored or something, should the editors step in? Or is that hampering a writers creativity? Depends on the situation.. but I think the point is that once rules have been established there's at least potential confusion of someone conflicts that.

Time travel is of course a lesser issue to the rules that govern Hulk, therefore there's likely far more flexibility on the part of the writers since clearly time travel rules change when needed. But the point is that pure science fiction can be governed by some rules.

Seriously, are you guys trying not to understand me on principle?

I agree with most everything you've said Xpac. The only bone of contention I have is putting guidelines around time travel in the MU because it doesn't help. If it was an area where consistency was important to the story, yes by all means set up rules to define the context. However, it's such a small thing and happens so infrequently I don't see any value to it.

That's all I'm saying. You guys are making this a much larger issue about continuity, editors not doing there jobs, and artists being lazy. It's borderline silly. I stand by my original assessment, time travel guidelines are not needed in the MU.

[Joe Acro]

If it was an area where consistency was important to the story, yes by all means set up rules to define the context.And what areas would that be, in this case?

I stand by my original assessment, time travel guidelines are not needed in the MU.I just can't agree with that. I think there need to be at least loose guidelines.

[XPac]

Seriously, are you guys trying not to understand me on principle?

I agree with most everything you've said Xpac. The only bone of contention I have is putting guidelines around time travel in the MU because it doesn't help. If it was an area where consistency was important to the story, yes by all means set up rules to define the context. However, it's such a small thing and happens so infrequently I don't see any value to it.

That's all I'm saying. You guys are making this a much larger issue about continuity, editors not doing there jobs, and artists being lazy. It's borderline silly. I stand by my original assessment, time travel guidelines are not needed in the MU.

How do you know it doesn't help? Is it that hard to imagine a writer deciding to utilize a bit of time travel and maybe doing a bit of homework to see how time travel works? I very much doubt Gruenwald is the only writer that doesn't place some value to consistancy.

[gorthon616]

If we're OK with that, then we're probably pretty much on the same page, too. I'm with you on not having anarchy, I just want writers to have some flexibility in which to throw some surprises in there.

Yeah. I figured as much when I got to that point of your post. I guess for me when someone says "rules" I automatically am under the impression that there are exceptions... for me it's like part of them being rules. The fact that there are rules just puts a certain burden on those using the exceptions.

And yes I am studying to be a lawyer.

[psm]

I did read what you said... specifically in context to your statement that time travel doesn't exist and every writers take is valid. Again, a lot of things in comic books don't actually exist. That doesn't mean that writers can necessarily do whatever the heck they want.

Touche. I see what you are getting at. But it still was under the premise of time travel in the MU which was obviously lost in translation. The scarcity of the event along with the lack of importance should be taken into consideration.

Now if you had a series where the main character jumps up and down the time line constantly, the next writer better maintain the consistency. If he didn't it would ultimately hurt the story.

[gorthon616]

I don't think anyone is arguing against guidelines. If thats what you guys believe then you have not read anything I've written. Of course guidelines are important, even necessary in many areas. The genre itself is composed of numerous assumptions as are most character concepts. However, having guidelines for everything no matter how small or unimportant is pointless. Now, if there was a series where time travel is important then fine, set up some context. Exiles and Excalibur both did. But having a once every ten years story about the Avengers jumping back into time its not needed.

Well from the impression for what I read from what you were saying (and what I read was what I quoted) was that you were basically arguing against the insistence of Time Travel Rules because of the fact that there was a long-term slippery slope effect where (hinted by your statement, where does it stop?) eventually the effect would be the unacceptable hindrance of the ability to tell good stories due to the lack of creative freedom.

Essentially, to my mind, you were making a broad generalized argument that generically rules were bad because generically writer's freedom was superior, with rules ultimately being good as an exception to the general argument.

To that point I was trying to counter that generically rules are good as they can be consistent with a writer's freedom, with rules becoming stifling and bad as the exception.

[psm]

How do you know it doesn't help? Is it that hard to imagine a writer deciding to utilize a bit of time travel and maybe doing a bit of homework to see how time travel works? I very much doubt Gruenwald is the only writer that doesn't place some value to consistency.

I'm sure all writers place value on consistency. Its just that writers have different interpretations of what consistency is and how far they should take it.

It doesn't help because everyone already have a general idea of how time travel works. All the guidelines do is add detailed caveats for use in the MU. Unfortunately, if the fans don't know the MU rules I can't see it really helping the writer. He would be better off just writing it for the general public and ignoring the rest. Honestly, if the guidelines were so helpful why aren't they used today?

[psm]

Essentially, to my mind, you were making a broad generalized argument that generically rules were bad because generically writer's freedom was superior, with rules ultimately being good as an exception to the general argument.

To that point I was trying to counter that generically rules are good as they can be consistent with a writer's freedom, with rules becoming stifling and bad as the exception.

Sorry, about that. But all my statements were suppose to be in direct regards to the time travel laws by Gruenwald for the MU. Obviously, something got lost in translation. :)

[XPac]

I'm sure all writers place value on consistency. Its just that writers have different interpretations of what consistency is and how far they should take it.

It doesn't help because everyone already have a general idea of how time travel works. All the guidelines do is add detailed caveats for use in the MU. Unfortunately, if the fans don't know the MU rules I can't see it really helping the writer. He would be better off just writing it for the general public and ignoring it. Honestly, if the guidelines were so helpful why aren't they used today?

Well, I'll just say this... if I were doing a time travel story, I wouldn't mind at all having that list in front of me. That's not to say that I'd necessarily follow it like gospel since it's possible the story I want to tell might require something different, but I think a list of previously established rules could be handy.

Marvel has decades of history. If someone is willing to put this stuff down on paper, it potentially makes everyone's job a bit easier in the long run. If the public doesn't know the exact rules, it doesn't hurt. If they do, it makes things seem more connected and sensible.

[Shellhead]

Well, I'll just say this... if I were doing a time travel story, I wouldn't mind at all having that list in front of me. That's not to say that I'd necessarily follow it like gospel since it's possible the story I want to tell might require something different, but I think a list of previously established rules could be handy.

Marvel has decades of history. If someone is willing to put this stuff down on paper, it potentially makes everyone's job a bit easier in the long run. If the public doesn't know the exact rules, it doesn't hurt. If they do, it makes things seem more connected and sensible.

It would certainly give their editors some work to justify their paychecks.

[psm]

Well, I'll just say this... if I were doing a time travel story, I wouldn't mind at all having that list in front of me. That's not to say that I'd necessarily follow it like gospel since it's possible the story I want to tell might require something different, but I think a list of previously established rules could be handy.

Marvel has decades of history. If someone is willing to put this stuff down on paper, it potentially makes everyone's job a bit easier in the long run. If the public doesn't know the exact rules, it doesn't hurt. If they do, it makes things seem more connected and sensible.

So you would want a rule like this:


10. There are three possible methods of time travel in the Marvel Universe: a. Time travel machines(Dr. Doom, Kang). b. Magic(Dr. Strange, Thor's hammer). c. Personally generated energy(Silver Surfer).

All methods involve generating chronal displacement inertia' freeing one's chronological position in the timestream(just as escape velocity frees one from earth's gravitation), skimming through the extra-temporal realm outside the timestream(Limbo), and re-entering the timestream at another chronological position. Because no time exists outside the timestream, the perceived duration of the passage through limbo may be anything from non-existent to an eternity.

Instead of just saying to yourself well if they go back in time 1) they can either start an alternate reality or 2) it affects their timeline.

Maybe my problem is with the rules themselves which I find overly complex. Is it really that important that they all use chronal displacement (whatever that is). I can't imagine for a minute Stan Lee/Kirby using these rules. I'm just glad they aren't enforcing it anymore. That must have been a nightmare.

[CBikle]

A couple of thoughts:

1 Gruenwald tended to fixate on problems that weren't really problems and I think this is a perfect example of this (another example was creating the Scourge character for the sole purpose of weeding out obscure B-list villains that Gruenwald felt were redundant).

2 I suspect these rules were directed at the creative teams and editors of the various X-books circa 1992, with all the alternate future characters that were popping up like Cable, Bishop, Nimrod, et al.

[CBikle]

Well, I'll just say this... if I were doing a time travel story, I wouldn't mind at all having that list in front of me. That's not to say that I'd necessarily follow it like gospel since it's possible the story I want to tell might require something different

I agree, but these weren't guidelines; they were edicts.

The whole tone of the memo was: "If you're going to do a time-travel story, this is how you're going to do it. Period."

[psm]

A couple of thoughts:

1 Gruenwald tended to fixate on problems that weren't really problems and I think this is a perfect example of this (another example was creating the Scourge character for the sole purpose of weeding out obscure B-list villains that Gruenwald felt were redundant).


Ahh... :( I actually like the scourge storyline. I will say this about Gruenwald, I think he excelled in Squadron Surpreme just because he couldn't obsess about continuity. It was an alternate universe so there was greater freedom for him to tell a story. It allowed him to elevate his game.

[Cthulhudrew]

It would certainly give their editors some work to justify their paychecks.

Which would not be a bad thing, for certain.

[CBikle]

Ahh... :( I actually like the scourge storyline.

I did too, his early appearances in different Marvel comics were interesting and kind of reminded me of the Monitor's guest-cameos in DC books prior to COIE.

It was a good and intriguing idea, done for a silly purpose,

Also, if memory serves, I don't think the Scourge storyline was ever supposed to
get resolved or or revealed; it really was just supposed to be an ongoing editorial weeding tool in the form of a mysterious gun-toting vigilante.

[CBikle]

I think this was a bad decision for an article read mostly by Marvel fans, basically explaining how time-travel stories will play out in Marvel titles (circa 1992).

Kind of like a magician revealing in technical detail, how a trick will be done before you see him do it. Just seems anti-climactic.

[XPac]

So you would want a rule like this:



Instead of just saying to yourself well if they go back in time 1) they can either start an alternate reality or 2) it affects their timeline.

Maybe my problem is with the rules themselves which I find overly complex. Is it really that important that they all use chronal displacement (whatever that is). I can't imagine for a minute Stan Lee/Kirby using these rules. I'm just glad they aren't enforcing it anymore. That must have been a nightmare.

I think it's handy. For stories with scientific time travel, sometimes a bit of techno-babble is necessary. I'd rather use the techno babble someone else invented rather than create my own if I can help it.

[Expletive Deleted]

I will say this about Gruenwald, I think he excelled in Squadron Surpreme just because he couldn't obsess about continuity. It was an alternate universe so there was greater freedom for him to tell a story. It allowed him to elevate his game.True, but he traded his continuity obsession for his Justice League obsession.

On a related note . . . we have to remember that, while adherence to shared universe continuity may have been part of the rationale for formulating his rules, this was a guy who just flat-out loved comic book metaphysics. He did his senior thesis in college on the connections between alternate fictional realities with an eye towards facilitating crossovers. His fanzine covered similar ground. Although there's some debate, he's probably the person who coined the term "omniverse." In terms of inventing abstract cosmic entities in the MU, he's right up there with Jim Starlin and Lee/Kirby. This sort of thing was his bread and butter.

To me, the most interesting thing about these rules and their application is the fun he obviously had coming up with them.

[Expletive Deleted]

I'd rather use the techno babble someone else invented rather than create my own if I can help it.And that's certainly an argument for shared universes.

Me, I like that writers can use someone else's technobabble, but I think the stories generally turn out better when they come up with their own.

[XPac]

I agree, but these weren't guidelines; they were edicts.

The whole tone of the memo was: "If you're going to do a time-travel story, this is how you're going to do it. Period."

Since we've seen time travel that doesn't fall in line with what we're seeing here, I honestly don't think these are strictly enforced edicts.

Honestly, marvel editors allow much bigger things than this to slip than whether or not someone skimmed through temporal realm outside the time stream. A third of the characters we see die end up walking around alive without explanation, and THIS is something they'd go out of their way to call someone one? I just can't see it.

[Expletive Deleted]

Gruenwald tended to fixate on problems that weren't really problems and I think this is a perfect example of this.That happens with some writers who have their roots in (no offense intended, everybody) hardcore fandom. They have elaborate theories, and they're suddenly able to actualize them. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't.

Personally, I think Gruenwald made it work a lot better than, say, Roy Thomas or the Bierbaums, but, yeah, it's there.

[StoneGold]

Keep in mind, this wasn't too long after Crisis, where DC's edict was supposed to be no time travel whatsoever. So there might have been something in the water.

[static]

who is the mutant who used time travel to act like superspeed? did this guy keep jumping to different timelines everytime he used his power? he must have created a ton of divergent timelines ....

[CBikle]

Since we've seen time travel that doesn't fall in line with what we're seeing here, I honestly don't think these are strictly enforced edicts.

I agree, but in 1992, I think they may have been (or maybe not; I wasn't reading a lot of Marvel around that time).

[CBikle]

That happens with some writers who have their roots in (no offense intended, everybody) hardcore fandom. They have elaborate theories, and they're suddenly able to actualize them. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't.

Personally, I think Gruenwald made it work a lot better than, say, Roy Thomas or the Bierbaums, but, yeah, it's there.

What theory(theories) did Roy Thomas incorporate into his stories ? (or was this when he was an editor ?)

[Joe Acro]

who is the mutant who used time travel to act like superspeed? did this guy keep jumping to different timelines everytime he used his power? he must have created a ton of divergent timelines ....
Isn't that what Quicksilver is doing these days?


How about this? Since some of us think that time travel should have guidelines and some think that the rules Gruenwald had in place were too strict, why don't we try coming up with our own list? Maybe even make it shorter, since one complaint was that it was too long.

[dingo]

Isn't that what Quicksilver is doing these days?


How about this? Since some of us think that time travel should have guidelines and some think that the rules Gruenwald had in place were too strict, why don't we try coming up with our own list? Maybe even make it shorter, since one complaint was that it was too long.

What about:

If you need it to be a certain way in order to tell a story, that's the way it is. Otherwise try to stick to the Gruenwald rules.

[Expletive Deleted]

What theory did Roy Thomas incorporate into his stories?Let me put it this way: he coined the term "retroactive continuity" while working on ALL-STAR SQUADRON for DC. He thought every Golden Age story should be in continuity, and he did his level best to make them all fit.

[Sijo]

I think that Gruenwald was simply trying to find a way to allow Time Travel stories (which are, by their very nature, paradoxical) t happen while preserving the continuity of Marvel Comics. After all, if the past COULD be changed, somebody sooner or later would do it... or in fact, it may have been changed several times already! Even if only in minor ways, and most people wouldn't even realize it. No, it's better to leave the time-travel to alternate realities and leave the "main" reality alone. AFAIK, only in Age of Apocalypse, House of M and 1602 has the main reality been affected (and in the first and last cases, the changes were turned into their own alternate realities.)

Only two things baffle me:
-Why are Alternate Realities created over events such as Daredevil marrying Elektra? Doesn't seem THAT World-shaking...

-Why is the Main Reality called "Earth 616" instead of Earth 1 or Earth Prime? (Besides DC's copyrights on those names, if any.) I assume it's actually a diversionary tactic- after all, it was Merlyn who first named it, I believe, and he's hardy trustworthy. Maybe the name is meant to distract temporal invaders from its importance...

[psm]

True, but he traded his continuity obsession for his Justice League obsession.

True, but I don't think he felt as beholden to it. I mean the Squadron Supreme did things the JLA would never do (okay we can take mind wiping off that list now :) ). I think there was enough of a difference to allow Gruenwald to really concentrate on the story and not on continuity. But like I said it's just my opinion.

[Expletive Deleted]

Why is the Main Reality called "Earth 616" instead of Earth 1 or Earth Prime?There's probably a continuity explanation out there (probably along the lines of what you're suggesting), but . . . Alan Moore's CAPTAIN BRITAIN was written in 1982, give or take, and "616" didn't really come into vogue until the early part of this decade.

[CBikle]

Let me put it this way: he coined the term "retroactive continuity" while working on ALL-STAR SQUADRON for DC. He thought every Golden Age story should be in continuity, and he did his level best to make them all fit.

See, I'm OK with that, because:

1 It sounds like a self-imposed rule on his own stories.

2 All-Star Squadron (originally) took place in 1940's Earth 2, a location pretty remote from most other DC titles. Any big changes that happened in that book, weren't necessarily going to have any real significance elsewhere.

3 I'm a big fan of Roy Thomas' work and I really can't remember there ever being a bad issue of All-Star Squadron. Young All-Stars was only OK, but I'll cut Roy slack on that considering that COIE sort of pulled the carpet out from under him.

[Joe Acro]

-Why are Alternate Realities created over events such as Daredevil marrying Elektra? Doesn't seem THAT World-shaking...
Out-of-continuity tales (like What If?s) are considered other realities. That's just how it is.

Don't know how long that practice has been in place, however.

[Saotome]

Thought I'd post it considering the other thread (started a new one so others would know):

October, 1992 - Marvel Age#117: Marvel's time travel rules

Thats odd I have Marvel Age 117 and could not locate Marks time travel page on it??

[gorthon616]

You know what they should do?

Institute a Class system to Time Travel (like with they do with Strength, and while they are at it add it to Intelligence and Magic).

Low-Level time travel (the most commonly achieved) would follow Gruenwald's rules. Mid-Level would have the *potential* to break it, but would be swimming against the cosmic time-stream so to speak. High-Level would be like cosmic-god level time travel where it's relatively easy to alter time.

[stingerman]

Thats odd I have Marvel Age 117 and could not locate Marks time travel page on it??

I believe its in the Mark's Remarks section. Its not specifically titled "time travel rules" but if you check out my first post, that website has them all listed as such. Let me know if its the right issue or not.