Mort Weisinger on Continuity

[Cei-U!]

From the “Smallville Mailsack” letters page in Adventure Comics #264 (September 1959):

Dear Editor:

In your May issue, in the story about Aquaman’s mother, it clearly showed her with legs, like a normal human being. Yet, the the story, “The Girl from Superman’s Past”, published in SUPERMAN Comics, the girl [Lori Lemaris – C!] had the tail of a fish. If both these girls came from Atlantis, wouldn’t they look alike?

Jon B. Beach, Cola, S.C.

(Are you serious? We’re publishing fiction, not documented history. Different stories present different conditions on different worlds. If not, all stories would be montonously alike. The Atlantis AQUAMAN’s mother came from has a different set-up than the Atlantis presented in the Superman story. We try to be consistent in our “ground rules” for each of our characters . For example, Ma and Pa [Kent – C!] own a general store in every issue. It isn’t a general store this month and a bowling arena the next. If we show the Green Arrow visiting Mars, it is entirely likely he’ll meet inhabitants and creatures different from those encountered by Jimmy Olsen and Batman. If writers didn’t use their imaginations to vary conditions, all comic book stories and science fiction movies would become so repetitious you’d soon lose interest.—Ed.)

I find Mr. Weisinger’s statement enthralling. There’s so much right *and* so much wrong in those few sentences it leaves my widdle head awhirl. Anybody wanna try to interpret the above?

Cei-U!
I summon the “Wha--?”!

[T GUy]

If writers didn’t use their imaginations to vary conditions, all comic book stories and science fiction movies would become so repetitious you’d soon lose interest.

The only thing wrong with Weisinger's thesis is the use of the word 'soon' - it took me something like fifteen years.

You don't have, in your stash, any items you could headline 'Bob Haney on continuity,' do you?

Hopeful of London

[InfoBroker]

My answer is a bit rambled. If I had more time it would be shorter and more coherent.

I think there are a multitude of creative preferences, editorial realities, and trends of the times that are locked into that answer.



The editorial structure of DC at the time, with each editor in charge of their particular set of DC characters and comics. They didn't report to each other, they had their stable or artists and writers that they worked with. I think a strong part of the commentary alludes to this.

In particular:

Different stories present different conditions on different worlds. If not, all stories would be montonously alike. The Atlantis AQUAMAN’s mother came from has a different set-up than the Atlantis presented in the Superman story.

I think there are definite advantages to not trying to tie every piece of a comic companies stories into some kind of grand master continuity structure. There are also a great deal of advantages to fully linking the continuity of a small finite set of comics together (Marvel Super-hero Comics of the Silver-Age, with an essence of Golden-Age imagery lighted added).

I see greatly dimished advantage in linking massive amounts of continuity, all genre's of every comic you have ever published just because your company published the story (Marvel Comics editorial policy from 1972 onward).

I have a problem with illusionary continuity, but I can live with it overall. See Julius Schwartz's Two Year Rule for the best way to apply this to ongoing, icon character comic books.

I don't think it did Marvel well to integrate their hard core gothic horror titles like Tomb of Dracula into their super-hero continuity. First off, it was supervelous as they had already introduced horror-like characters with super-hero slants, including Morbius a few months after vampires where allow to roam around in comics again. Second, it totally ruins the overall atmosphere of the Dracula mythos, knowing that the same world he haunts is also populated with Spider-mans and Hulks.

It also messes up and confuses the arrangement of myths. Marvel's 1940s-1960s Sub-mariner Atlantis is a fine mythos, with a fascinating history. Similar in scope, but slightly better in my opinion than the 60s Atlantis of Aquaman. Add the Robert E. Howard Atlantis links and things get a bit mushy. Force Kirby's wonderful Eternal's Atlantis structure into that mix, and worse, layer the Inhuman's/Kree Attila history on top of all that muck, and you no longer have entertaining stories, but just what Weisinger warn's against, an entagled historical dissertation.

Good storytellers can find ways around the muck. Smart ones don't go near the mess. Both types of philosophies can be structure to tell wonderful tales. Stan's tight Marvel continuity of the 60s is a strong and highly successful counter to Mort's answer. But as I mention above, taken to extremes, the tight continuity is a trap.

Both types can lead to monotony. Both can weave wonder tales. It's all in the hands of the storytellers.

-jb the wishing and washing ib-

[MWGallaher]

Weisinger was speaking what would be common sense to a science fiction pulp editor, which he had been. Sure, if you have a recurring lead character, the elements of his universe should stay consistent, but you don't make the writer of a back-up story alter his version of Plutonians just because they're not made of living ice like the ones Zip Tyro encountered in the lead story.

[Jolly Mon]

It stated plainly the comic book writer of the era's attitude towards what he was writing. It was four-color entertainment for little kids and adults who were mentally defective. There was no reason to worry about "continuity" (I would prefer to call it "consistancy" in this case) when your target audience would give up the genre before they were discerning enough to detect the contempt you held them in, or were too deficient to ever notice it any way.

They were being paid to produce pablum, and that's how they viewed it. It really wasn't until the advent of Marvel that writers started taking the readership (and what they were writing) even remotely seriously.

[Jonathan Bogart]

I find Mr. Weisinger’s statement enthralling. There’s so much right *and* so much wrong in those few sentences it leaves my widdle head awhirl. Anybody wanna try to interpret the above?
I'm with T-Guy and InfoBroker on this one. There's not much wrong, and a whole lotta right.

Who was it said that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds?

[gentlesatirist]

...have some internal belief - based on research or just accepted opinion - that their entire reading audience turned over every 3 years?

In other words, there would have been no one reading a comic in 1959 that was reading that same title in 1956. As a result, continuity and consistency just didn't matter.


- FE
Wickliffe OH

[Shellhead]

Maybe I'm the odd man out, but the continuity was always an element that I enjoyed. The more linkage between the various characters of the Marvel Universe (I was a Marvel Zombie until the early 80's), the greater my enjoyment of each character.

Admittedly, the Dracula/Dr. Strange crossover was a risky idea that didn't work out as well as it could have, and the battle between Dracula and Silver Surfer was a terrible idea. But I loved it when Drac foe Dr. Sun later showed up as a bad guy in the pages of the Fantastic Four. And when Iron Fist met Luke Cage, the bizarre combination of kung fu and blaxploitation was as amazing as the combination of peanut butter and chocolate.

As each year goes by, precise continuity becomes less reasonable to maintain. But I would like to see Marvel put more effort into current continuity. Unresolve scheduling problems and lack of coordination between editors made a mess out of Disassembled/Secret Wars/New Avengers, for example. And when two incompatible versions of Radioactive Man pop up simulataneously in the pages of Black Panther and New Thunderbolts, it really irks me. Certain writers at Marvel have been given free rein to just churn out irresponsible crap, leaving the other writers tripping over the wreckage.

[MDG]

Maybe I'm the odd man out, but the continuity was always an element that I enjoyed....
As each year goes by, precise continuity becomes less reasonable to maintain...
The continuity and use of "history" was interesting and fun through the 70s, and maybe up through Crisis (I'm talking from a DC perspective here--don't know enough about Marvel). And especially with a writer who could use a character's history well (Englehart comes to mind), really get some "resonance" into the story. Other times it just seems like a lot of picky little crap.

But now the pendulum seems to have swung from slavish "preservation" of the continuity to "let's just chuck everything out the window when it gets in the way". Neither is very satisfying to readers.

Of course, I'm still amazed that people demand total realism and plausibility from superhero comics.

MDG