Mort Weisinger on Continuity

[Cei-U!]

I posted this on the Classics board first but I bet I get some interesting responses here.

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 monotonously 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--?”!

[king mob]

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


Ooooo, now there's a truth.

[west3man]

I posted this on the Classics board first but I bet I get some interesting responses here.

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



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--?”!
Like you said, right *and* wrong. I'm not too fond of the "hey doofus"-like start, though.

I didn't understand the "-C" thing, btw.

[foswell]

If he came out with a statement like that in todays continuity obsessed times there would be uproar.

[Lone Ranger]

Maybe one of the reasons Marvel started to take away some of DC's market share is that Stan Lee didn't tend to get angry at his readers (this could be a 10 year old asking the question for Pete's sake!).

Personally, I think that DC tried to have pretty consistent continuity and they simply screwed up here. Sure, maybe not every Martian looked the same in the DCU at the time - but they generally tried to be consistent with characters that might have recurring roles.

In my opinion, Mort is back-pedalling coming up with a pretty lame editorial philosophy instead of a simple mea culpa.

[Cei-U!]

Like you said, right *and* wrong. I'm not too fond of the "hey doofus"-like start, though.

Why should Mort, a notorious bully, treat his readers any different than he treated his creative staff?

I didn't understand the "-C" thing, btw.

Sorry, I hoped that would be clearer. Those were my explanatory notes, the "C!" being

Cei-U!
I summon the unintentional obfuscation!

[StoneGold]

Meh, just Mort's way of yelling out

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a59/stonegold/untitled.jpg

NERDS!!!!!!!

[PatrickG]

I agree 110% with the statement. I think it's appropriate as a response to a 10 year old because it takes them seriously. Mort knew how to get kids reading comics because he hung out with actual neighborhood kids.

It's adults that get their panties in a bind today.

But then, I like writers who INTENTIONALLY include continuity gaffes.

You want offensive? Now, how would I reword this statement if it was for today's audience?

Thanks to the translatatron 3000, here it is:

Bite me, fanboy. We’re publishing fiction, not your @*#!@^# fantasy novel RPG bull$#!& where everything has to make sense in an Excel spreadsheet. This isn't the AQUAMAN comic, maybe you forgot to check the cover. The Atlantis in Aquaman is different because it's a different story. The Atlantis AQUAMAN’s mother came from has a different set-up than the Atlantis presented in the Superman story. Kinda like how your mother's a #$%# and mine isn't.

Still reading? Okay. Look, we try to be consistent in our “ground rules” for each of our characters . For example, Ma and Pa 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.

What happens in a freakin' Aquaman comic has as much to do with what happens in a Jimmy Olsen comic book or a Superboy comic as the price of tea in China has to do with my kidney stones.

I created freakin' Aquaman and I don't freakin' care whether his comics are in the same "universe" as Superman's or if Batman's comics are the same as Superman's. If they cross over, they cross over. If purple gorillas give Abraham Lincoln an enema next month, it happens because that's what the story says. Deal with it.

Get it through your thick skull, we're just telling stories. They don't have to be interrelated.

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 -- Oh. Wait! Too late. We lost everybody except the anal retentive ones ten years ago.

$%#@. I shoulda gone for my real estate license.

[Michael P]

I honestly wish Mort would come and say that to certain CBR posters in person.

[Slam_Bradley]

While he is almost universally acknowledged as a bullying prick Weisinger was a great editor. And I agree with what he has to say 100%.

[Tom]

I honestly wish Mort would come and say that to certain CBR posters in person.
That would be awesome, what with the rotting corpse and everything.

[PatrickG]

That would be awesome, what with the rotting corpse and everything.

Damn. Beat me to it.

[Michael P]

That would be awesome, what with the rotting corpse and everything.
Marvel Zombie vs. Real Zombie. Sounds like a good Rumbles thread.

[StoneGold]

That would be awesome, what with the rotting corpse and everything.
You make it sound like CBR is a real place. Just need to bust out that electronic Ouija board. Everyone put their hand on their mice at the same time...

[Ray R.]

While he is almost universally acknowledged as a bullying prick Weisinger was a great editor. And I agree with what he has to say 100%.

So do I. Continuity is such an overrated concept. When you've got characters who age like glaciers, come back from the dead like it's a trip to Club Med, and otherwise perform acts in spandex that in real life would create at the very least wicked friction burns, hernias, and other medical maladies, as well as break every known law, theory or inkling concerning the physical universe, whether Grodd's Gorilla City is in southeastern Africa or subsaharan Africa from one title to another or one issue to another means absolutely diddly-squat.

It's fiction. Let it go.

Use the Simpsons' Rule of Continuity: if you see a continuity error, it's because of a wizard. If you feel differently, put the comic down and walk outside and get some fresh air.

[Slam_Bradley]

So do I. Continuity is such an overrated concept. When you've got characters who age like glaciers, come back from the dead like it's a trip to Club Med, and otherwise perform acts in spandex that in real life would create at the very least wicked friction burns, hernias, and other medical maladies, as well as break every known law, theory or inkling concerning the physical universe, whether Grodd's Gorilla City is in southeastern Africa or subsaharan Africa from one title to another or one issue to another means absolutely diddly-squat.

It's fiction. Let it go.

Use the Simpsons' Rule of Continuity: if you see a continuity error, it's because of a wizard. If you feel differently, put the comic down and walk outside and get some fresh air.


Preach on, Brother Ray!

Y'know I know where we can rent an old theatre. We can put you in a leisure suit and start our own religion.

[west3man]

Enh. I think continuity has value.

I'm glad there are books that are part of continuity AND books that aren't.

[Lone Ranger]

I also think continuity has value to a point.

I recently read the Golden Age Sandman Archives, and in one story - Both District Attorney Belmont and Dian Belmont learn that Wesley Dodds is the Sandman. This is important as it fundamentally changes the relationships in the strip.

A few issues later, only Dian knows the Sandman's secret identity - somehow the D.A. has forgotten.

While it's not the end of the world - it would be nice for the writers to stick with a single storyline so as not to confuse the reader.

I also think if a woman has a fish tail below the waist - she shouldn't have legs in another book. I don't care about her hairdo or suddenly develops a love of Oreos - that's the small stuff.

*steps out for some fresh air*

[west3man]

*steps out for some fresh air*
What is this "fresh air" of which you speak?

[king mob]

The story should be the thing that matters, not the fact that Batman's cape was slightly longer in Batman#405 than it was in Batman#490.
Continuity can be fun, not at the expense of everything else though and certainly not for the sake of a hardcore gang of Fanboys.

[Tom]

You make it sound like CBR is a real place.

I honestly wish Mort would come and say that to certain CBR posters in person.

_____________

[Joe Rice]

Mort, you're a beautiful man. (http://listencomics.blogspot.com/2005/10/continuity.html)

[Joe Rice]

The story should be the thing that matters, not the fact that Batman's cape was slightly longer in Batman#405 than it was in Batman#490.
Continuity can be fun, not at the expense of everything else though and certainly not for the sake of a hardcore gang of Fanboys.

Good writers can use continuity well and can abandon it well. I'd prefer they had the option to do either. Bad writers will write junk no matter what the rules are.

[StoneGold]

Mort, you're a beautiful man. (http://listencomics.blogspot.com/2005/10/continuity.html)
I thought that link was going to lead to a file of Weisenger cheesecake glamour photos. You know, tasteful stuff, Mort on a bearskin rug naked, but with a pile of flowers covering his genitalia.

[west3man]

The story should be the thing that matters, not the fact that Batman's cape was slightly longer in Batman#405 than it was in Batman#490.
Continuity can be fun, not at the expense of everything else though and certainly not for the sake of a hardcore gang of Fanboys.
What do you think about switching between fins and legs, as opposed to big to bigger capes?

[Joe Rice]

I thought that link was going to lead to a file of Weisenger cheesecake glamour photos. You know, tasteful stuff, Mort on a bearskin rug naked, but with a pile of flowers covering his genitalia.

Wait, it doesn't? Crap.

[west3man]

I thought that link was going to lead to a file of Weisenger cheesecake glamour photos. You know, tasteful stuff, Mort on a bearskin rug naked, but with a pile of flowers covering his genitalia.
What a tease.

[Ray R.]

I also think continuity has value to a point.

I recently read the Golden Age Sandman Archives, and in one story - Both District Attorney Belmont and Dian Belmont learn that Wesley Dodds is the Sandman. This is important as it fundamentally changes the relationships in the strip.

A few issues later, only Dian knows the Sandman's secret identity - somehow the D.A. has forgotten.

While it's not the end of the world - it would be nice for the writers to stick with a single storyline so as not to confuse the reader.

I also think if a woman has a fish tail below the waist - she shouldn't have legs in another book. I don't care about her hairdo or suddenly develops a love of Oreos - that's the small stuff.

*steps out for some fresh air*

The fish tail thing, it was a wizard, man.

My snarky point was that it takes a suspension of disbelief to invest in the characters anyway. Expecting writers 3, 5, 6, 10 years down the line, let alone 20, 30, 40, 50 years down the line for most of these characters is unrealistic and I think pretty damn constrictive to artistic freedom. It just leads to continual retconning and retconning over and over again, let alone something like a JLA/Avengers or X-Men/Teen Titans meet-up, which HAS to occur outside of regular continuity.

You're essentially buying into the unbelievable and then complaining about the mundane details. Noone's arguing for "consistency" within books -- that's a good thing -- the beef is with "established continuity" across comic lines.

Oh, and the fresh air will do you good, young man.

[StoneGold]

Actually, wait, never mind, it was Julie who took those. My mistake.

[king mob]

What do you think about switching between fins and legs, as opposed to big to bigger capes?

Well the fins have to be the same colour of the leg wear the character was wearing otherwise it's not canon.

http://www.teacuerdas.com/images/nostalgia-series-cannon1a.jpg

[Lone Ranger]

My snarky point was that it takes a suspension of disbelief to invest in the characters anyway. Expecting writers 3, 5, 6, 10 years down the line, let alone 20, 30, 40, 50 years down the line for most of these characters is unrealistic and I think pretty damn constrictive to artistic freedom.

Oh, I agree with that - I am thinking in terms of a single issue to another. Granted in the early days of comic books, no one knew how long things would last and did work too hard a building up continuity (many characters had a revolving door of superpowers), so I can forgive the folks at DC for the screw up with D.A. Belmont.

By the late 50s, however, things were a bit different and DC was working hard at building up the mythos behind its characters (most notably Superman). This is more overall background stuff that adds some depth to the characters, rather than simply worrying about what Lois Lane chose as a major in college.

Of course it can be overdone and eventually you have to destroy all of the kryptonite on Earth. The key thing is not to overdo it.

If DC wanted its readers to know that Aquaman was the product of a lighthouse keeper and a mermaid, then his mother should have a fish tail for all of her apperances.

That's because all mermaids have fishtails - everyone knows that.

Again, I actually think Mort liked some continuity, he was just lashing out at someone pointing out an error.

[Cei-U!]

This isn't the AQUAMAN comic, maybe you forgot to check the cover.

Except that Adventure Comics *was* "the AQUAMAN comic" at the time. The book starred Superboy, Green Arrow and Aquaman. Can't fault young Joe B. Beard there.

I also think if a woman has a fish tail below the waist - she shouldn't have legs in another book.

But that wasn't what that letter-writer back in '59 was saying. Atlanna Curry was from Atlantis and had legs. Lori Lemaris was from Atlantis and had a tail. The two characters were introduced the same month in two different Weisinger-edited comics. This was neither acase of crossing editorial fiefdoms nor expecting an editor to conform to 20-year-old continuity. I can see why the kid (if he was a kid) was confused.

Oh, and Joe? Your column was the first thing that came to mind when I read the letter. Thanks for chiming in.

Cei-U!
Just keeping things factual!

[Joe Rice]

Oh, and Joe? Your column was the first thing that came to mind when I read the letter. Thanks for chiming in.

Cei-U!
Just keeping things factual!

My pleasure. I like talking comics here. I don't get to do it enough.

As for the two Atlantises in one month in one book thing, I can kind of see it, yeah. I'd still judge each story on their on merits, though.

[Sir Tim Drake]

Why should Mort, a notorious bully, treat his readers any different than he treated his creative staff?

According to Alan Moore, there was a point during Mort Weisinger's funeral (or maybe his wake) when the attendees were supposed to stand up and offer testimonials about how great Mort had been. But he had been so unpopular that no one had anything nice to say about him, so no one stood up. After a few uncomfortable moments, one woman got up and said: "His brother was worse."

I don't know if this is actually true; it seems like a story that could be told about any number of deceased mean people.

[Lone Ranger]

But that wasn't what that letter-writer back in '59 was saying. Atlanna Curry was from Atlantis and had legs. Lori Lemaris was from Atlantis and had a tail. The two characters were introduced the same month in two different Weisinger-edited comics. This was neither acase of crossing editorial fiefdoms nor expecting an editor to conform to 20-year-old continuity. I can see why the kid (if he was a kid) was confused.



Oh - I see. Read that first post too quickly.

Basically the kid is asking if two different races of people exist in Atlantis. Boy, that could have really be spun out into some serious issue-driven stories about race relations in Atlantis. DC could have used Atlantis as a mirror image of the US in the early 60s.

But, we are talking DC in the early 60s - so it's probably better just to throw in a giant starfish.


Still, they should all have tails. Mermaids have tails. 'Nuff said

[Sir Tim Drake]

Of course it can be overdone and eventually you have to destroy all of the kryptonite on Earth.

I thought they did that (http://www.comics.org/graphics/covers/116/200/116_2_233.jpg) for reasons other than continuity. Or were you speaking metaphorically? :)

[Ray R.]

Oh - I see. Read that first post too quickly.

Basically the kid is asking if two different races of people exist in Atlantis. Boy, that could have really be spun out into some serious issue-driven stories about race relations in Atlantis. DC could have used Atlantis as a mirror image of the US in the early 60s.

But, we are talking DC in the early 60s - so it's probably better just to throw in a giant starfish.


Still, they should all have tails. Mermaids have tails. 'Nuff said

A giant starfish with telepathy and when you cut off a piece it becomes another giant starfish with telepathy.

Anyone want to discuss Tyroc and the future of race relations?

[Cei-U!]

For the record, Weisinger eventually hired E. Nelson Bridwell to help him keep continuity details straight, which suggests that despite his perfunctory dismissal of JBB's sincere question Mort must've figured out that his readers did care about such things. It was ENB who explained that since Atlantis was an entire continent, it had many cities whose populaces discovered different ways of surviving. Some remained air-breathers and lived in a domed underwater city (Aquaman's Atlanteans), some mutating to water-breathing merman form and living in an open underwater city (Lori Lemaris' Atlanteans). It was a simple, satisfactory solution that I'll bet took him all of five minutes to work out.

Cei-U!
I summon my pedagogue hat!

[Lone Ranger]

I thought they did that (http://www.comics.org/graphics/covers/116/200/116_2_233.jpg) for reasons other than continuity. Or were you speaking metaphorically? :)

Well, it was tied into a broader storyline but a of lot of what was being done in the Supes books back then (change in careers, fewer Krypto appearances) was to give him a bit of a fresh start, no?

The one thing all Superman editors eventually discovered was that if you fly the flag of continuity too close to the (yellow) sun, you will get Byrned.

[Noah Johnson]

I've been known to have continuity twitches myself. You know, reading something, enjoying it, and suddenly "Waitasecond, I'm pretty sure that wasn't the name of Peter Parker's high school." However, I've got the decency to be embarrassed by them.

The question, to me, is not whether continuity is good or bad, it's where we place it on our list of priorities. For many people, it's item #1. John Byrne's rant against The Incredibles may be revealing of the motivations of these cultists. Byrne, as I recall, basically said that superhero comics escape absurdity only by the tiniest of slender margins, and therefore cannot stand up to even the slightest mockery, disrepect, or humor, lest they look stupid and thus usher in the apocalypse. Hence his insistence on never calling Spider-Man "Spidey", among assorted other Byrne-related pathologies. This is basically a guy afraid that he's devoted his life to something stupid standing there screaming "NOT STUPID! NOT NOT NOT!" unaware of how stupid he looks doing it.

Continuity dorks, I think, are the same. They're either insecure teenagers, or adults who are basically still insecure teenagers, who notice that they're desperately devoted to something obscure, unpopular, and of no use. Well, they can at least draw superiority from being masters of this ridiculous cult hobby. Memorize every issue, every detail, know all there is to know! Better to reign in dork hell than serve in geek heaven!

To say that continuity doesn't matter represents the same threat to these guys that religious pluralism represents to fundamentalist fanatics of all faiths. Their rigid and prescriptive philosophy requires that everyone else agree with them. If people are free to ignore their irrelevant obsession, that obsession loses what minimal worth it has.

For those of more mature and stable mind, continuity is shuffled down the list of priorities, certainly to below the creation of decent art. Continuity, at this point, is a fun trivia game, an endless series of easter eggs for the fans, the complete loss of which would be annoying, sure, but which is not the main focus of the art.

Also, worrying about continuity too much means that things like Avengers Forever get written. Kurt Busiek did the best possible job with that misbegotten miniseries, but it was a bad, cluttered, embarrassing idea front to back.

[Ray R.]

For the record, Weisinger eventually hired E. Nelson Bridwell to help him keep continuity details straight, which suggests that despite his perfunctory dismissal of JBB's sincere question Mort must've figured out that his readers did care about such things. It was ENB who explained that since Atlantis was an entire continent, it had many cities whose populaces discovered different ways of surviving. Some remained air-breathers and lived in a domed underwater city (Aquaman's Atlanteans), some mutating to water-breathing merman form and living in an open underwater city (Lori Lemaris' Atlanteans). It was a simple, satisfactory solution that I'll bet took him all of five minutes to work out.

Cei-U!
I summon my pedagogue hat!


That's the way I remember it as well. Didn't ENB bring in the whole Earth-1, Earth-2, Earth-X, Earth-3 stuff, though, to get the Golden Age heroes back in the picture (and the Quality heroes, later).

Talk about convoluted continuity.....

Bridwell was D.C.'s answer to Oppenheimer.

"Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds" (quoting Vishnu to the Prince about a warrior's duty in the Bhagavad Gita).

Then Crisis made it literal.....

And where would "What If" be without the continuity to exploit in the first place.....

I always admired Bridwell, but thought it was a cheap cop-out to have multiple futures, with the Legion of Superheroes' just being one....it's continuity, no it's not....

Scrap it all, and just keep internal continuity consistent within books....

[Slam_Bradley]

I also think continuity has value to a point.

I recently read the Golden Age Sandman Archives, and in one story - Both District Attorney Belmont and Dian Belmont learn that Wesley Dodds is the Sandman. This is important as it fundamentally changes the relationships in the strip.

A few issues later, only Dian knows the Sandman's secret identity - somehow the D.A. has forgotten.

While it's not the end of the world - it would be nice for the writers to stick with a single storyline so as not to confuse the reader.

I also think if a woman has a fish tail below the waist - she shouldn't have legs in another book. I don't care about her hairdo or suddenly develops a love of Oreos - that's the small stuff.

*steps out for some fresh air*


I agree with half of what you're saying here, Scott. I really like internal continuity within a strip, as long as it isn't taken to extremes. So if D.A. Belmont knows that Dodds is Sandman, he should probably know that 4 issues later. This is a function of serial literature.

However, the fact that there are two different Atlantis' in two different stories featuring two different main characters is immaterial to me. As long as they fit the story (which in this case they did) I'm fine with it.

A foolish consistency being the Hobgoblin and all that rot.

[Gaz]

I've been known to have continuity twitches myself. You know, reading something, enjoying it, and suddenly "Waitasecond, I'm pretty sure that wasn't the name of Peter Parker's high school." However, I've got the decency to be embarrassed by them.

The question, to me, is not whether continuity is good or bad, it's where we place it on our list of priorities. For many people, it's item #1. John Byrne's rant against The Incredibles may be revealing of the motivations of these cultists. Byrne, as I recall, basically said that superhero comics escape absurdity only by the tiniest of slender margins, and therefore cannot stand up to even the slightest mockery, disrepect, or humor, lest they look stupid and thus usher in the apocalypse. Hence his insistence on never calling Spider-Man "Spidey", among assorted other Byrne-related pathologies. This is basically a guy afraid that he's devoted his life to something stupid standing there screaming "NOT STUPID! NOT NOT NOT!" unaware of how stupid he looks doing it.

Continuity dorks, I think, are the same. They're either insecure teenagers, or adults who are basically still insecure teenagers, who notice that they're desperately devoted to something obscure, unpopular, and of no use. Well, they can at least draw superiority from being masters of this ridiculous cult hobby. Memorize every issue, every detail, know all there is to know! Better to reign in dork hell than serve in geek heaven!

To say that continuity doesn't matter represents the same threat to these guys that religious pluralism represents to fundamentalist fanatics of all faiths. Their rigid and prescriptive philosophy requires that everyone else agree with them. If people are free to ignore their irrelevant obsession, that obsession loses what minimal worth it has.

For those of more mature and stable mind, continuity is shuffled down the list of priorities, certainly to below the creation of decent art. Continuity, at this point, is a fun trivia game, an endless series of easter eggs for the fans, the complete loss of which would be annoying, sure, but which is not the main focus of the art.

Also, worrying about continuity too much means that things like Avengers Forever get written. Kurt Busiek did the best possible job with that misbegotten miniseries, but it was a bad, cluttered, embarrassing idea front to back.

I'm more on the latter side, where the more it's disregarded(ie, outright contradicted, with no explanation) the more my enjoyment will lessen.
Things like place names, hair colors (unless a defining characteristic) and shoe size, those can change if you want. Things like names, or basic personality, or general rules of how certain things work for character X (ie, Green Lantern's ring should always work for 24 hours, no more, no less) or group Y (Skrulls are geen shapeshifters, no matter if the fight the X-Men, or the Avengers) are more critical and can, if done flagrantly enough, destroy any enjoyment of the story, even if the dialogue and drama are perfectly constructed, and the art is superb. The story would likely still be readable, and have some entertainment value, but it would be considerably lessened.
But then again, I'm probably the kind of mouthbreathing continuity loser that you're talking about... (I like the concept of shared universes, with rules, and history)

[west3man]

The fish tail thing, it was a wizard, man.

My snarky point was that it takes a suspension of disbelief to invest in the characters anyway. Expecting writers 3, 5, 6, 10 years down the line, let alone 20, 30, 40, 50 years down the line for most of these characters is unrealistic and I think pretty damn constrictive to artistic freedom. It just leads to continual retconning and retconning over and over again, let alone something like a JLA/Avengers or X-Men/Teen Titans meet-up, which HAS to occur outside of regular continuity.

You're essentially buying into the unbelievable and then complaining about the mundane details. Noone's arguing for "consistency" within books -- that's a good thing -- the beef is with "established continuity" across comic lines.

Oh, and the fresh air will do you good, young man.
It's fine if they're not in the same continuity. I agree that readers shouldn't "argue for consistency within books" that don't claim or imply an internal consistency.

If they do, then it's a reasonable expectation, imho.

[JKCarrier]

Didn't ENB bring in the whole Earth-1, Earth-2, Earth-X, Earth-3 stuff, though, to get the Golden Age heroes back in the picture (and the Quality heroes, later).

Nope, that was Julie Schwartz.

[Cei-U!]

However, the fact that there are two different Atlantis' in two different stories featuring two different main characters is immaterial to me. As long as they fit the story (which in this case they did) I'm fine with it.

On the other hand, Slam, Weisinger was having his stars crossover into each others' series--Superboy met a pre-Green Arrow Oliver Queen in Adventure #258 (with GA referencing the encounter in his solo story), for example, while Aquaman popped up in Lois Lane #12 just a month before this letters page. I find it disingenuous for Mort to tell his readership the characters live in the same fictional world and then berate them for following that premise to its next logical step.

Cei-U!
I summon a different (but not better) POV!

[Noah Johnson]

But then again, I'm probably the kind of mouthbreathing continuity loser that you're talking about... (I like the concept of shared universes, with rules, and history)
Nah, I haven't really seen any dorks of that fanatical variety on this board. Some other boards that shall remain nameless, though... yeesh. And yeah, I like those things too. It's not a matter of like/dislike, it's a matter of prioritization.

Continuity is good to have, it adds depth and texture to the fictional world, lets you feel like you've grown to know the characters as people, and provides lots of storytelling material to work with, from little in-jokes to major surprises.

But making good art is more important. Allow me to cite a hypothetical I once created while having a similar argument on another board: (The comments, therefore, are addressed to a serious continuity nut I was talking to, not anyone here.)
Think of the position you would have editors put in: You're an editor, and one day a fiery-eyed young writer bursts into your office. He's got an idea for a Captain America story. Talent and committment oozing from his pores, he lays out for you a story that stirs the depths of your soul. Thrilling, unexpected, emotionally real, as rich in character as it is in plot complexity and white-knuckled action, this story will blow the doors off everything that has come before and do for Captain America what _Dark Knight_ did for Batman. The story hinges on, let's say, the failed Nazi attempts to recreate the Super-Soldier Serum. "Sorry," you tell the writer, "the Nazis recreated the serum in Invaders #17. Remember, Biljo White told them about potassium and they made Warrior Woman?" "Damn, you're right," sighs the writer. "Oh well."

It seems to me that if one is going to demand this level of neurotic fidelity from one's favorite medium, one had better have a substantially better justification than "suspension of disbelief." Here we enter the realm of personal taste, and of course different people's tastes do and should vary, but frankly, if one finds it easier to suspend disbelief in a trite, inoffensive little yarn that pays due respect to all the times Cap fought the friggin' Armadillo than in a story that really engages the mind and spirit but ignores the existence of Madcap, maybe fiction really isn't your thing.

[Noah Johnson]

I find it disingenuous for Mort to tell his readership the characters live in the same fictional world and then berate them for following that premise to its next logical step.
If you'd called Mort Weisinger disingenuous while he was alive, it would have been the kindest statement made about him in any given month. The guy was a penis, we know this.

[MacQuarrie]

The story should be the thing that matters, not the fact that Batman's cape was slightly longer in Batman#405 than it was in Batman#490.
Continuity can be fun, not at the expense of everything else though and certainly not for the sake of a hardcore gang of Fanboys.
Funny you should mention that. Back in the '70s, Walt Simonson and Michael Kaluta had an ongoing contest to see who could get away with the longest cape on Batman. Simonson's bent and folded and cascaded down a hillside after him, and Kaluta's flowed like parachute silk in the wind. It was a beautiful thing, and nobody ever wrote a story to explain it, thank God.

[PatrickG]

Weisinger was a dick and also one of the finest editors in the industry.

Listen to Alan Moore talk about his craft.

Track down the interviews where he talks about how many words you should put in a word balloon, how to compose a page, what kind of stories to tell.

Moore crafted a HUGE chunk of his technique from studying Weisinger's laws of how to write a comic book, the technical stuff that Weisinger drove people crazy micromanaging, and Moore turned that inward. Alan Moore is harsher on himself than any living editor ever could be because he has internalized Mort Weisinger's approach... and that's one of the reasons Moore is the success he is today. He's a detail craftsman who is (or was at one point) genuinely obsessed with the Weisinger method of writing.

It's technical and methodical. It's about how to present dialogue, where to draw story ideas from. It's exacting... and yet, continuity isn't the goal. If a story doesn't fly, you can ditch it. It's about building mythology.

[PatrickG]

Funny you should mention that. Back in the '70s, Walt Simonson and Michael Kaluta had an ongoing contest to see who could get away with the longest cape on Batman. Simonson's bent and folded and cascaded down a hillside after him, and Kaluta's flowed like parachute silk in the wind. It was a beautiful thing, and nobody ever wrote a story to explain it, thank God.

Did they honestly have a contest going?

Like Wally Wood's gag with Power Girl's growing breasts or Elliot Maggin creating Clint Flicker?

[Walter Simonson]

Funny you should mention that. Back in the '70s, Walt Simonson and Michael Kaluta had an ongoing contest to see who could get away with the longest cape on Batman. Simonson's bent and folded and cascaded down a hillside after him, and Kaluta's flowed like parachute silk in the wind. It was a beautiful thing, and nobody ever wrote a story to explain it, thank God.

Pretty close.

The contest was actually with Berni Wrightson. Berni did a Batman in Swamp Thing with a long flowing cape. I countered with a cape made of hundred weight canvass in Manhunter [Detective Comics] during Batman's appearance in the final chapter.

;-)

Best/Walter

[PatrickG]

Pretty close.

The contest was actually with Berni Wrightson. Berni did a Batman in Swamp Thing with a long flowing cape. I countered with a cape made of hundred weight canvass in Manhunter [Detective Comics] during Batman's appearance in the final chapter.

;-)

Best/Walter

Thanks for chiming in.

I realize you aren't doing A TON of work with the big two companies anymore, Mr. Simonson, but I'm really curious to hear your $.02 on the matter.

On one hand, I think you've been very respectful of continuity, especially Kirby's. You also retold O'Neil Superman Sandman story post-Crisis in a pretty faithful (abbreviated) form. I actually dig your Superman "reboot" idea from '86 that inspired RETURN TO KRYPTON.

Now, on the other hand, you're an avid follower of myths, am I right? And myths are built around charismatic personalities and its the characters themselves (and a few details) that make them legends while the details themselves:

A) Can't be TOO unwieldy when being expressed via word of mouth

and

B) Tend to be improved in the retellings.

So I can see where you might weigh a little on both sides... And that makes me curious what your take is.

Your FANTASTIC FOUR run is one of my all-time favorite creator runs on a comic (and it both USED obscure continuity like the Kangs and the Black Celestial -- and streamlined continuity with its treatment of Doom) and I'm just amazed to have you stopping by on this thread.

[Charles RB]

I think that if you have a comic or group of comics that are meant to have some level of continuity, if it's been used in stories before and sometimes been used as a selling point, then you should do your best to keep the damn thing straight. It affects the story if you don't, as it's hard to stay engrossed in the story when you suddenly think "hang on, that bit there is wrong".

[PatrickG]

Thing is, Charles, you're assuming that issue #219 is the same story as issue #218 or #175 or #1.

I'm not sure I see much point in treating a comic book as a soap opera or a biography.

It's a series of fragmented legends, the parts of which are generally one to six issues in length.

I have no problem with three internally consistant stories as such:

Heroman recruits a Sidekick Lad in the aftermath of being weakened by an attack by Dr. Dragon, a minor villain. The origin is never referenced again and Dr. Dragon fades into obscurity.

Sidekick Lad's popularity skyrockets and he starts a team called the Sidekicks Supreme who fight Dr. Dragon, one of their archfoes who is recreated from scratch using the name.

The Sidekicks Supreme team up with Heroman, who has never heard of anyone named Dr. Dragon before.

And several times over the years, Heroman faces villains called Dr. Dragon with no memory of any of the previous ones despite a clear recollection of Sidekick Lad.

[Charles RB]

Thing is, Charles, you're assuming that issue #219 is the same story as issue #218

If #219 isn't the same story as the issue that directly preceeded it, there better be a bloody good reason for that.

I'm not sure I see much point in treating a comic book as a soap opera or a biography.

Because comics tend to be serial, they've been using soap-opera storytelling since the early 1960s, they are generally following the same character or characters they followed from #1... Comics have set themselves up for years to be soap operas and continuous. Suddenly throwing that off and/or contradicting moderately large bits of prior continuity, that's just taking the piss. If you're using continuity, use it.

And several times over the years, Heroman faces villains called Dr. Dragon with no memory of any of the previous ones despite a clear recollection of Sidekick Lad.

That's not internally consistent at all though, if he's fought several villains with the same name and he never seems to notice. He's not even going to sigh and say "oh, not another one!"?

[PatrickG]

If #219 isn't the same story as the issue that directly preceeded it, there better be a bloody good reason for that.


Why?


Because comics tend to be serial, they've been using soap-opera storytelling since the early 1960s, they are generally following the same character or characters they followed from #1... Comics have set themselves up for years to be soap operas and continuous. Suddenly throwing that off and/or contradicting moderately large bits of prior continuity, that's just taking the piss. If you're using continuity, use it.


Not all comics did that. I sought out reprints growing up. I've done everything I can to AVOID serial storytelling in my years as a reader.

There was a time when it wasn't the norm. I'd like it to be that time again.


That's not internally consistent at all though, if he's fought several villains with the same name and he never seems to notice. He's not even going to sigh and say "oh, not another one!"?

That can be funny. But it depends on the intent.

I don't see a problem with writing a character, in each appearance, as if it's the only major appearance they have. Who they are doesn't change but anything not a part of the hero's core make up doesn't need to stick around, clogging up the drain.

Superman fought Metallo at least twice "for the first time". He fought Bizarro twice "for the first time". There have been multiple versions of how he met Luthor or Batman or Lois.

I think it defeats the point if you try to reconcile that.

I think these stories should exist in that same kind of place that your brain files away stories that a friend of a friend told you.

They aren't necessarily a reliable chronology.

Now, a major change like Superman wanting to kill Lois Lane or Batman recruiting a senior citizen Robin, well, those would take some EXPLAINING.

But whether Bruce Wayne was nine or twelve when his parents were shot or whether he met Vicki Vale in a restaurant or at his house or on a movie set? Eh.

Not important.

It wouldn't really bother me if Wally West was Barry Allen's nephew by blood.

It's the kind of detail a real person might get wrong if they were relaying a word of mouth story.

[howyadoin]

The one thing all Superman editors eventually discovered was that if you fly the flag of continuity too close to the (yellow) sun, you will get Byrned.Okay, that tops your "sweet Christmas" joke.

[howyadoin]

Your FANTASTIC FOUR run is one of my all-time favorite creator runs on a comicI second that emotion.

[Gaz]

Why?



Not all comics did that. I sought out reprints growing up. I've done everything I can to AVOID serial storytelling in my years as a reader.

There was a time when it wasn't the norm. I'd like it to be that time again.



That can be funny. But it depends on the intent.

I don't see a problem with writing a character, in each appearance, as if it's the only major appearance they have. Who they are doesn't change but anything not a part of the hero's core make up doesn't need to stick around, clogging up the drain.

Superman fought Metallo at least twice "for the first time". He fought Bizarro twice "for the first time". There have been multiple versions of how he met Luthor or Batman or Lois.

I think it defeats the point if you try to reconcile that.

I think these stories should exist in that same kind of place that your brain files away stories that a friend of a friend told you.

They aren't necessarily a reliable chronology.

Now, a major change like Superman wanting to kill Lois Lane or Batman recruiting a senior citizen Robin, well, those would take some EXPLAINING.

But whether Bruce Wayne was nine or twelve when his parents were shot or whether he met Vicki Vale in a restaurant or at his house or on a movie set? Eh.

Not important.

It wouldn't really bother me if Wally West was Barry Allen's nephew by blood.

It's the kind of detail a real person might get wrong if they were relaying a word of mouth story.

See, I'm conflicted. The serial nature is what a lot of us enjoy, and for that to work, consistency is needed. Now I agree that indvidual details don't need to be absolutely concrete, so long as they're roughly the same.
Then again, we've discussed this before, and your approach to anthology style stories, where nothing has consequences, is interesting, but would ultimately start boring me. (Note, me, not you, everyone has their opinion)

[PatrickG]

I'm not saying nothing should ever build on anything.

But if you introduce a new Metallo, for example...

I wouldn't hold writers to using it in sequels. They could if it worked for their stories.

And using him wouldn't force writers to address how he escaped the ice pit on Pluto he was last seen stuck in or what happened to the Super-Rhino the issue before.

I see continuity as a buffet to pick from, not something to be married to.

[Gaz]

I'm not saying nothing should ever build on anything.

But if you introduce a new Metallo, for example...

I wouldn't hold writers to using it in sequels. They could if it worked for their stories.

And using him wouldn't force writers to address how he escaped the ice pit on Pluto he was last seen stuck in or what happened to the Super-Rhino the issue before.

I see continuity as a buffet to pick from, not something to be married to.
What about if Clark and Lois get divorced in story A, should story B, beginning the next month ignore that, because the writer desperately needs them to be married for his story to work?

[PatrickG]

Why would you focus on a detail like whether somebody's married or divorced?

If they're married, they're married.

If they're not, they're not.

[Gaz]

Why would you focus on a detail like whether somebody's married or divorced?

If they're married, they're married.

If they're not, they're not.
See, that's where the whole thing falls down for me, if something like that happens, it should have consequences beyond "Now we are not married, let us never speak of it again, and resume our courtship, as though we have only just met"

[PatrickG]

Well, no. I just think having them get divorced is out of the question.

If you're gonna eliminate the marriage, eliminate the marriage.

A divorced Superman sounds like a bad parody though.

[Gaz]

Well, no. I just think having them get divorced is out of the question.

If you're gonna eliminate the marriage, eliminate the marriage.

A divorced Superman sounds like a bad parody though.
OK, Scott and Jean Summers then or Generic Character and Characterette, but ignoring a development like that in what is typically a serialised structure wouldn't give you pause?

[PatrickG]

OK, Scott and Jean Summers then or Generic Character and Characterette, but ignoring a development like that in what is typically a serialised structure wouldn't give you pause?

They never got divorced. She died.

My position isn't absolute. But I'm more interested in the ideas you can explore with these characters than advancing their personal life.

Look at most of the Law & Order shows. How much of the show (and how many episodes) get devoted to their personal lives?

Okay, Jack McCoy's a recovering alcoholic. If we see him drunk, it means trouble for him.

But the STORY on any given week, most weeks, is about the case and McCoy's personal life is garnish on the plate.

I think if you tell compelling stories, you don't have to rock the character's world to the core EVERY (or even MOST) issues.

Heck. How much has HUSH impacted the monthly Bat-titles? In all honesty.

How much did Alan Moore's Superman stories make waves? Sure they did, critically, but were they ever referenced by anyone else?

[Gaz]

They never got divorced. She died.

My position isn't absolute. But I'm more interested in the ideas you can explore with these characters than advancing their personal life.

Look at most of the Law & Order shows. How much of the show (and how many episodes) get devoted to their personal lives?

Okay, Jack McCoy's a recovering alcoholic. If we see him drunk, it means trouble for him.

But the STORY on any given week, most weeks, is about the case and McCoy's personal life is garnish on the plate.

I think if you tell compelling stories, you don't have to rock the character's world to the core EVERY (or even MOST) issues.

Heck. How much has HUSH impacted the monthly Bat-titles? In all honesty.

How much did Alan Moore's Superman stories make waves? Sure they did, critically, but were they ever referenced by anyone else?

You're evading my point by taking it literally as opposed to the hypothetical it was.
L&O is a procedural, so yes, the plot takes precedence, but character is still important. Why do think people were annoyed by Elisabeth Rohm's character coming out very abruptly and then leaving? It's not the focus but if the garnish is rotten, it ruins the whole meal.
Different series focus more or less on character over plot, and such details should be weighted accordingly. For instance, in MTU recently, Carol Danvers was shown drinking. Now that was easily explained by saying it was non-alcoholic (which Kirkman did, in the last issue's letters), but it takes away from the character moments by seeming to disregard a major part of the background of a character and could even be seen to be making light of a substance abuse issue. (It wasn't, it was a mistake.)

[PatrickG]

You're evading my point by taking it literally as opposed to the hypothetical it was.
L&O is a procedural, so yes, the plot takes precedence, but character is still important. Why do think people were annoyed by Elisabeth Rohm's character coming out very abruptly and then leaving? It's not the focus but if the garnish is rotten, it ruins the whole meal.
Different series focus more or less on character over plot, and such details should be weighted accordingly. For instance, in MTU recently, Carol Danvers was shown drinking. Now that was easily explained by saying it was non-alcoholic (which Kirkman did, in the last issue's letters), but it takes away from the character moments by seeming to disregard a major part of the background of a character and could even be seen to be making light of a substance abuse issue. (It wasn't, it was a mistake.)

You're the one who's influencing your enjoyment by looking for something other than a myth, a story, an idea.

[Joe Rice]

See, that's where the whole thing falls down for me, if something like that happens, it should have consequences beyond "Now we are not married, let us never speak of it again, and resume our courtship, as though we have only just met"

If you can "believe" a story about guys shooting lasers out of their eyes, what is so difficult about marital status?

Anyone who "believes" fiction . . .I don't get that. You're reading a story. You can be entertained by it, enlightened by it, or not. But you don't need to buy it, to believe it. That's crazy talk.

[Gaz]

OK, like I said, maybe I am one of these sad zombies you mentioned...
*sits down and puts on Comic Book Guy shirt*

(Two points, I never said anything about "believing" fiction, but unless you can immerse yourself in it, then I think it's unsuccessful. And 2, would you feel the same about serialised chapters in a novel? How about books which form part of series?)

[west3man]

I believe there is such a thing as "suspension of disbelief." I believe that it has value. I'm pretty sure I'm not crazy.
Okay, I am, but for completely different reasons.

Those who don't care about spoilers or who don't need to "buy into" certain concepts or fictional elements - you have a gift. Enjoy.

Those of us who find that knowing the end of the story before the beginning and middle... or who can only suspend our disbelief so much*... we have a gift, too.



* - like expecting a married couple to still be married in an established realm of continuity... and being distracted when these elements aren't continuous

[west3man]

I'd pretty much said everything I needed to regarding this topic, but this CBR column (http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/?column=19) made some good points about continuity, even though that's not exactly what this installment's about. Anyway, I thought it's contents (which are about the idea of re-starting existing comic series at #1) contribute to the debate, in its own way.

It's written by the Invicible writer, btw. Kinda neat since I'm becoming more and more interested in that book, anyway. If there's not a forum for that column, I think I'll start a thread about it.

[Kid Omega]

There is a huge difference between being CONSISTANT and being a slave to CONTINUITY (as we know it).

Batman is a rich guy whose parents were killed and he has a butler.

Superman is from another world and he came here to do only good and he disguises himself as a nerd. And he's faster than a speeding and more powerful than a locomotive.

Archie can't decide between Betty and Veronica and Jughead likes to eat burgers.

These are classic, simple concepts that need to be held to to maintain the basic interest in these characters.

Now go read INFINITE CRISIS for an example of the other extreme. Every bit of minutae has to be explained in boring and grave detail, and then re-explained over and over again.

I love the original multiverse: "Hey- fans wonder why one Green Lantern uses magic and is blonde, but the new one is a space policeman."

"They're on different planets! Who gives a rat's ass?!?"

But a select few nerds DID give a rat's ass, became editors and writers, and ruined superheroes by trying to make sense of insane fantasy.

Marvel books have always been different, they are serialized soap operas where continuity is a key to the attraction. But over at the Distinguished Competition, Superman is a Strange Visitor with Powers Beyond that of Mortal Men, and that's all he ever should be. If his parents are alive in one story and dead in the next, it really isn't a deal-breaker. If he has super-robots in his Fortress one issue, and there isn't even a Fortress in the next, the world will keep turning.

As long as he's a nerd that rips off his shirt and flies off to save the world, all is well.

(Lois rejecting Clark is another key idea, but they blew that. Which is another whole thread, and pretty good evidence that the people in charge of Superman are totally clueless as to his appeal. It's like Archie finally going steady with Veronica. Betty is totally broken-hearted, and Jughead gets pissed that his best friend now spends all his time with a spoiled girlfriend. Reggie gets jealous and never hangs out with them again. Betty starts dating Dilton, but she's never really happy, and he gets depressed because he knows she still has a crush on Archie. Sound ridiculous? Look at the last ten years of Superman stories with the same objective eye, and it becomes clear why no one gives a shit about America's Favorite Hero anymore. End rant...)


-a

[Sir Tim Drake]

Pretty close.

The contest was actually with Berni Wrightson. Berni did a Batman in Swamp Thing with a long flowing cape. I countered with a cape made of hundred weight canvass in Manhunter [Detective Comics] during Batman's appearance in the final chapter.

;-)

Best/Walter

Welcome to CBR, Walter. It's great to see a creator of your stature posting here.

[Gaz]

Lois rejecting Clark is another key idea, but they blew that. Which is another whole thread, and pretty good evidence that the people in charge of Superman are totally clueless as to his appeal. It's like Archie finally going steady with Veronica. Betty is totally broken-hearted, and Jughead gets pissed that his best friend now spends all his time with a spoiled girlfriend. Reggie gets jealous and never hangs out with them again. Betty starts dating Dilton, but she's never really happy, and he gets depressed because he knows she still has a crush on Archie. Sound ridiculous? Look at the last ten years of Superman stories with the same objective eye, and it becomes clear why no one gives a shit about America's Favorite Hero anymore. End rant...


-a
The main body kinda sums it upin that I prefer the "Marvel" approach, but also, I like the Lois/Clark relationship. Reading some of the older stuff, where she rejects Clark but Superman rejects her, it gets frustrating, which works for a while, but eventually people are gonna ask "People know Lois hangs out with Superman, what difference does it make if she knows he's Clark?"
The Everyman factor doesn't mean that he needs to be alone, unless you think that we all want to look up to a lonely guy who acts like a jerk to the girl who's crazy about him. (It was rarely the Green Lantern bit of "I want her to like ME, not my powers")

[P-Man]

I like it when a subplot slowly unfolds over the course of 200 issues of a comic book. On the other hand, if a publisher wants to only tell a 22 page story and then move on to a totally different story every month, that's all well and good too. They just need to stick with it. Don't tell me that this particular detail from 27 issues still effects the stories in the current issue, but this one from that same issue doesn't. Don't tell me that this one thing that happened in Adventures of Super-DudeMan two months ago effects what happens in Tales of Super-DudeMan, but what happened three months ago doesn't. No continuity, loose continuity, tight continuity, whatever. Just be consistent. If the publishers were consistent in their continuity approach to different books, we wouldn't even be having this debate.

[Charles RB]

Why?

Why should #219 be the same story as #218? Because if it isn't, there is no point to it being #219. If you're saying you're doing a serial, it should be a serial.

There was a time when it wasn't the norm. I'd like it to be that time again.

Yes, and that time was at least over 40 years ago. I'm not interested in seeing comics made now that want to be just like they might have been like over 40 years ago- if I want to see that, I'll buy the reprints.


They aren't necessarily a reliable chronology.

If they're claiming to be a continuous serial, they should be.

And if there isn't a reliable continuity or chronology, if the comic is presented as a serial but none of the details are consistent about what's happened, if an issue can completely contradict the preceeding issue... then who cares what happens? There's no consequences or repercussions to anything that ever happens because the series will forget that happened.

And that's not just shoddy writing, it's also boring.

If his parents are alive in one story and dead in the next, it really isn't a deal-breaker.

If his parents are alive one story and then dead the next without actually being killed off, that very much is a deal-breaker. Why should I care about any of the characters if they can be alive or dead in any random issue for no reason?

[Joe Rice]

Why should #219 be the same story as #218? Because if it isn't, there is no point to it being #219. If you're saying you're doing a serial, it should be a serial.

Each numbered issue of magazines don't continue the same story. 219 could be a new story. It shouldn't have to follow the old writer's stupid rules.



Yes, and that time was at least over 40 years ago. I'm not interested in seeing comics made now that want to be just like they might have been like over 40 years ago- if I want to see that, I'll buy the reprints.

Funny how normal people used to read comics back then, not just a shrinking anal fanbase.



And if there isn't a reliable continuity or chronology, if the comic is presented as a serial but none of the details are consistent about what's happened, if an issue can completely contradict the preceeding issue... then who cares what happens? There's no consequences or repercussions to anything that ever happens because the series will forget that happened.

And that's not just shoddy writing, it's also boring.

Not quite. You're just looking to emotionally invest yourself in fictional happenings. People don't emotionally invest themselves in Leopold Bloom. They read his book to enjoy it or appreciate it.



If his parents are alive one story and then dead the next without actually being killed off, that very much is a deal-breaker. Why should I care about any of the characters if they can be alive or dead in any random issue for no reason?

Why does "caring" about fictional characters affect how enjoyable a story is. I don't give a whit about Pa Kent or Superman or whatever. I just like good stories.

[Gaz]

Why should #219 be the same story as #218? Because if it isn't, there is no point to it being #219. If you're saying you're doing a serial, it should be a serial.



Yes, and that time was at least over 40 years ago. I'm not interested in seeing comics made now that want to be just like they might have been like over 40 years ago- if I want to see that, I'll buy the reprints.



If they're claiming to be a continuous serial, they should be.

And if there isn't a reliable continuity or chronology, if the comic is presented as a serial but none of the details are consistent about what's happened, if an issue can completely contradict the preceeding issue... then who cares what happens? There's no consequences or repercussions to anything that ever happens because the series will forget that happened.

And that's not just shoddy writing, it's also boring.

I'll point something out, if the rules of the series have defined that kind of flexibility, a la The Simpsons, then you can mostly get away with it, but even they pay attention to big changes.

[Gaz]

Each numbered issue of magazines don't continue the same story. 219 could be a new story. It shouldn't have to follow the old writer's stupid rules.





Funny how normal people used to read comics back then, not just a shrinking anal fanbase.





Not quite. You're just looking to emotionally invest yourself in fictional happenings. People don't emotionally invest themselves in Leopold Bloom. They read his book to enjoy it or appreciate it.





Why does "caring" about fictional characters affect how enjoyable a story is. I don't give a whit about Pa Kent or Superman or whatever. I just like good stories.

Honestly? This makes me wonder why you read/watch any fiction at all. If there's no emotional involvement, then you're just passing time between work and sleep, because there's no engagement in the events you're being told about, because they didn't happen. And that saddens me.

[Cei-U!]

Lois rejecting Clark is another key idea, but they blew that. Which is another whole thread, and pretty good evidence that the people in charge of Superman are totally clueless as to his appeal. It's like Archie finally going steady with Veronica. Betty is totally broken-hearted, and Jughead gets pissed that his best friend now spends all his time with a spoiled girlfriend. Reggie gets jealous and never hangs out with them again. Betty starts dating Dilton, but she's never really happy, and he gets depressed because he knows she still has a crush on Archie. Sound ridiculous? Look at the last ten years of Superman stories with the same objective eye, and it becomes clear why no one gives a shit about America's Favorite Hero anymore. End rant...

Will you father my child? That was beautiful.

In case anyone got the idea from this thread that I'm advocating continuity uber alles, let me remind you my favorite comic book series of all time is The Brave and the Bold, a title that cheerfully torpedoed DC continuity on a regular basis.

Cei-U!
I summon the tertiary priority!

[Joe Rice]

Honestly? This makes me wonder why you read/watch any fiction at all. If there's no emotional involvement, then you're just passing time between work and sleep, because there's no engagement in the events you're being told about, because they didn't happen. And that saddens me.

I read them to enjoy them and to appreciate the art and the craft. For emotional fulfillment, I stick to life.

[Gaz]

I read them to enjoy them and to appreciate the art and the craft. For emotional fulfillment, I stick to life.
But there's no emotion involved in that for you, no engagement on a level other than "well, that was some compelling structure and linework"? That baffles me, I couldn't watch a movie without being excited, saddened, laughing, nervous, angry or smiling and it escapes me how someone else could.

[Charles RB]

Each numbered issue of magazines don't continue the same story.

Magazines, for the most part, don't tell stories or serialised stories.

219 could be a new story. It shouldn't have to follow the old writer's stupid rules.

Funny how normal people used to read comics back then,

Funny how they also bought all the serialised, continuity referencing Marvels of the 60s, and did the same with Marvel & DC in the 70s, and so on. Funny how even more normal people watch TV soap operas that have lasted for decades and have much bigger & unpenetrable continuities than comics.

People don't emotionally invest themselves in Leopold Bloom.

Who?

Why does "caring" about fictional characters affect how enjoyable a story is.

Because if I don't care about them and I don't care what happens to them, why am I bothering to read it? I don't give a damn what happens to Superman, so I'm going to buy something else that doesn't have Superman in them.

[west3man]

Why does "caring" about fictional characters affect how enjoyable a story is. For some, I think it's because these are stories about people lives -and other people's lives are, sometimes, more interesting if one is more invested IN them.

If a character dies, there's usually supposed to be a pseudo-emotional impact associated with that character's passing. That's only possible when one is emotionally invested in (or cares about) the character - even if only marginally so. On those occasions in which one is largely invested, there's greater depth to the impact.


The difference between caring and not caring about the characters is, to me, like the difference between watching a first-person perspective roller coaster video and BEING on the roller coaster. One can enjoy either, but it helps when you're pulled into it.*




* - Obviously, reading a Superman comic isn't gonna make me fly, but there are degrees between passive enjoyment and Last Action Hero. Often, the closer you get to "being there," the better.

[Joe Rice]

But there's no emotion involved in that for you, no engagement on a level other than "well, that was some compelling structure and linework"? That baffles me, I couldn't watch a movie without being excited, saddened, laughing, nervous, angry or smiling and it escapes me how someone else could.

In great work, you are emotionally invested quite often. In the work. In the story. Not in imaginary people. I mean, great writing can make me cheer or weep, but that's the great writing doing that. Not whether Pa Kent is alive or not.

I don't mind continuity used well. I just give a damn if it's used at all. If the choice is between strict rules that every writer has to follow and writers having a choice to do as they please, I'll side against those rules every time. I don't expect continued stories. I expect great stories. If they're continued, hurrah. If not, who cares? This whole silly "tapestry" thing . . .sometimes it makes something cool happen. Seven Soldiers would have been difficult to pull off without this (but it COULD have been pulled off). But usually it just lets untalented writers ruin things for good writers.

[Michael P]

In great work, you are emotionally invested quite often. In the work. In the story. Not in imaginary people. I mean, great writing can make me cheer or weep, but that's the great writing doing that. Not whether Pa Kent is alive or not.
But aren't the characters a part of the craft? Ideally, a great story will contain characters so well-constructed and represented that they will, at least for the time spent reading the story, seem like real people. Or so it seems to me, anyway.

[Joe Rice]

But aren't the characters a part of the craft? Ideally, a great story will contain characters so well-constructed and represented that they will, at least for the time spent reading the story, seem like real people. Or so it seems to me, anyway.

Of course. Like I said, that's good writing.

That's got nothing to do with continuity.

[Charles RB]

In great work, you are emotionally invested quite often. In the work. In the story. Not in imaginary people.

Except the imaginary people and what happens to them are part of the story and the emotional investment.

I mean, great writing can make me cheer or weep, but that's the great writing doing that. Not whether Pa Kent is alive or not.

If a writer can't keep track of whether or not a character's parents are dead, I can't see them having any great writing skills. A little-used background character, fine, but the main character's dad?

If the choice is between strict rules that every writer has to follow and writers having a choice to do as they please, I'll side against those rules every time.

Except that's not the choice.

I don't expect continued stories.

I do expect continued stories when they've been presented to me as continued stories and previously have been continued stories. Once you've done that, I'm going to get narked off if they suddenly start mucking about with the continuity.

[Michael P]

Of course. Like I said, that's good writing.

That's got nothing to do with continuity.
I can see that. I first got interested in Spider-Man when they retold his origin in the comics strip. Didn't know a damn thing about Gwen Stacy, the numerous Goblins, etc., but the panel recounting the "With great power etc." moment hooked me.

I just used etc. twice in the same sentence. That can't be right.

[Gaz]

In great work, you are emotionally invested quite often. In the work. In the story. Not in imaginary people. I mean, great writing can make me cheer or weep, but that's the great writing doing that. Not whether Pa Kent is alive or not.

I don't mind continuity used well. I just give a damn if it's used at all. If the choice is between strict rules that every writer has to follow and writers having a choice to do as they please, I'll side against those rules every time. I don't expect continued stories. I expect great stories. If they're continued, hurrah. If not, who cares? This whole silly "tapestry" thing . . .sometimes it makes something cool happen. Seven Soldiers would have been difficult to pull off without this (but it COULD have been pulled off). But usually it just lets untalented writers ruin things for good writers.
I think it's more the idea of being able to pick and choose if they're continued or not. Either they are, and you follow the rules, or they're not, and you ignore what came before.
And like you say, things like Seven Soldiers, and Alias (a favorite of mine) wouldn't work nearly as well outside that structure.
(You're also seeming to contradict yourself. If you care about characters in good stories, then how can you not be affected when they're killed, either in a good death scene, or in a blatant attempt to shock? The first out of sympathy, the other from annoyance at the shoddy treatment of a character that has been done so well before)

[Joe Rice]

Just because one writer writes a Pa Kent is Alive Story doesn't mean every other writer has to. You don't like that it doesn't fit in your little puzzle, then don't read it. I judge each story on its own merits, and the stories featuring the same character by other people has nothing to do with it.

[Joe Rice]

I think it's more the idea of being able to pick and choose if they're continued or not. Either they are, and you follow the rules, or they're not, and you ignore what came before.
And like you say, things like Seven Soldiers, and Alias (a favorite of mine) wouldn't work nearly as well outside that structure.
(You're also seeming to contradict yourself. If you care about characters in good stories, then how can you not be affected when they're killed, either in a good death scene, or in a blatant attempt to shock? The first out of sympathy, the other from annoyance at the shoddy treatment of a character that has been done so well before)

My point is that no one should be forced to use continuity or shared universe crap. I don't want good writers forced to acknowledge the crap written by bad writers. Ignore it and write your own story. You want to use it, feel free! Nothing wrong with using it. There IS something wrong with it being mandatory.

I'm moved by writing. I mean, it's splitting hairs, but I don't really give a damn about imaginary people. It's art that can move me.

[Gaz]

Just because one writer writes a Pa Kent is Alive Story doesn't mean every other writer has to. You don't like that it doesn't fit in your little puzzle, then don't read it. I judge each story on its own merits, and the stories featuring the same character by other people has nothing to do with it.
And this feels like me justifying why I like cake to someone who is indifferent to or hates it. Almost pointless, as it's so ingrained in both parties that neither will be able to understand the other's POV. (Especially the whole detatchment thing)

[Gaz]

My point is that no one should be forced to use continuity or shared universe crap. I don't want good writers forced to acknowledge the crap written by bad writers. Ignore it and write your own story. You want to use it, feel free! Nothing wrong with using it. There IS something wrong with it being mandatory.

I'm moved by writing. I mean, it's splitting hairs, but I don't really give a damn about imaginary people. It's art that can move me.
And that method is less confusing? That a serialised medium can be that or an anthology based on a whim? That wouldn't annoy you?

[Charles RB]

Just because one writer writes a Pa Kent is Alive Story doesn't mean every other writer has to.

It does if Superman is presented as a continuing story. Which it is, and has been for decades now. If a writer can't remember if the lead's father is dead or not in it, I'm not holding my breath expecting great stories from them. What else are they going to screw up on?

[Charles RB]

My point is that no one should be forced to use continuity or shared universe crap.

They're not forced. They're entirely free to not go and work on a comic that is set in a shared universe with continuity. Nothing is making them do that. If they choose to work on it, they go in knowing they're working on a comic with a shared universe and continuity that also is owned by somebody else, and I'd expect them to remember that.

I'm moved by writing. I mean, it's splitting hairs, but I don't really give a damn about imaginary people. It's art that can move me.

Art and writing about imaginary people.

[Joe Rice]

And that method is less confusing? That a serialised medium can be that or an anthology based on a whim? That wouldn't annoy you?

Not at all. I don't read stories I don't like. I don't care if stories I do like fit in with them. I care if writers I do like are constrained from creativity by house rules written by lesser writers.

[Joe Rice]

It does if Superman is presented as a continuing story. Which it is, and has been for decades now. If a writer can't remember if the lead's father is dead or not in it, I'm not holding my breath expecting great stories from them. What else are they going to screw up on?

I don't want it presented as a continuing story. I don't consider the comics as just continued stories. I read the ones I like for their own merit. I want writers freed from having to make it a continued story from whatever talentless hack who worked before them.

[west3man]

I don't read stories I don't like.
Now there's a tough trick.

*waits for StoneGold to say, "That's what she said."*

[Michael P]

My point is that no one should be forced to use continuity or shared universe crap. I don't want good writers forced to acknowledge the crap written by bad writers.
Although it can be fun to take someone else's bad story and spin a character or element from it around and make a good story out of it. Or I think so, anyway.

[Joe Rice]

Although it can be fun to take someone else's bad story and spin a character or element from it around and make a good story out of it. Or I think so, anyway.

Yeah, but that's why I say "forced." It CAN be done, and maybe some good writers would want to . . .but they should not HAVE to.

The more options available, the more variety of good stories you'll have.

[Spackling Compound]

Yeah, but that's why I say "forced." It CAN be done, and maybe some good writers would want to . . .but they should not HAVE to.

The more options available, the more variety of good stories you'll have.
I think the whole continuity thing took off when the "wonderment" of childhood starting disappearing from the readership.
From the old days...60's-70's:I mean, when you start on comics at age 6 or 7, usually you unquestioningly read the material, enjoy the single-issue self contained story and re-read it all month until the next trip to the 7-11. I never thought about Cpt Marvel having to be from another universe/earth to team up with Superman. However, soon it began to have to be explained. I never thought about Peter Parker NEVER getting out of college, but it had to be explained for.
There is a natural instinct in comics writers, that make them good comics writers, to tell what needs to be static (The Waynes die in a shooting) and what can be fluid (Batman can/cannot have a son). It's COMIC BOOK writing, not classic literature, not television, not movies, but comics. There are unspoken rules, set by a child's imagination. When the childlike wonder dies or moves into literalism (Heyyyyy...in Action Comics Superman flew to Alpha-Cronus 5 to help the Birdpeople against the Blue Menace but in Justice League he needed a space helmet to go to Alpha-Cronus! I demand accountability!).
I remember when I was just hitting 11 years old and a friend and I were watching "Road Runner". There was a scene where Wile E. Coyote got blown up and walked away charred and my friend said, "Yeah, like that would really happen." I laughed. He was serious. That's how I became aware of the literalism that would soon create Secret Wars, Crisises and Orgies among the Outsiders.
Comics weren't meant to be critiqued by literalist, adult, discerning minds. However, now we do and it, frankly, can be a bit creepy.

[west3man]

Well, it can be a bit weird when these characters have never ever met and never heard of each others' cities and never experienced each others' the SENSES SHATTERING events... then act like they've been in the same universe, all along.

Of course, there have been stories which have done just that - and I dug some of'em. But Marvel and DC, for example, are different in certain ways, so the idea that they're in different universes or whatever just seemed obvious in a realm that's already acknowledge parallel universes.

[Michael P]

I had an interesting epiphany about continuity this week. I was reading the new Action Comics, which has Superman fighting the Queen of Fables from that one Waid JLA arc. Now, in that story, the Queen was, as far as we knew, an evil witch from some unnamed medieval period, and she ended up trapped in a copy of the US tax code. At the start of the story, she's at the bottom of the ocean, and she hints through dialogue that she's been to Krypton.

All this gave me pause, but I quickly realized that I didn't care, because Superman was dressed in armor and fighting a troll, and Jimmy Olsen just kicked the Big Bad Wolf in the face. If there's an explanation next time, and it's good, bully for Gail, but I'm more interested in seeing the Kryptonian uglies the Queen throws at Superman next time.

[StoneGold]

I don't want it presented as a continuing story. I don't consider the comics as just continued stories. I read the ones I like for their own merit. I want writers freed from having to make it a continued story from whatever talentless hack who worked before them.
Here's where that arguement falls apart a bit... what we're talking about here is pay for play work with licensed characters. This isn't exactly War and Peace we're talking about here. And the same goes to a certain extent with any serialized mass consupmtion product. Really, I don't care too much if Frasier said on Cheers that his father was dead. But if Norm showed up one day and was played by Rachel Hunter as a freebasing coal miner, it destroys the thin veneer of reality to the concept.

[Joe Rice]

What "thin veneer"? Was the show somehow realer before that? Could you not enjoy a well-written freebasing female Norm episode?

What I'm talking about is what I want, and what other people want. Before superhero comics became slaves to continuity, anyone could pick up an issue and enjoy it. Now, fewer and fewer people enjoy them, in the middle of a cultural time when the ideas are taking off in other media.

[K'Nort]

On the other hand, I hate the idea that I'm shallow for enjoying continuity. I don't see why it has to be either/or.

[StoneGold]

What "thin veneer"? Was the show somehow realer before that? Could you not enjoy a well-written freebasing female Norm episode?

What I'm talking about is what I want, and what other people want. Before superhero comics became slaves to continuity, anyone could pick up an issue and enjoy it. Now, fewer and fewer people enjoy them, in the middle of a cultural time when the ideas are taking off in other media.
All I'm talking about is there is being a slave to continuity, and there's following your own shit. And there's a difference. And I'm not talking about the "she has a tail or legs or nothing, damnit!" thing, I'm talking about when something happens on a more massive scale.


And trying to tie in continuity to a drop in sales is a bullshit argument. There are far more cultural and economic issues to the whole thing beyond writers started paying attention to what they were doing.

[Michael P]

On the other hand, I hate the idea that I'm shallow for enjoying continuity. I don't see why it has to be either/or.
I don't think anyone is saying that it does. There are degrees of rationality involved that separate enjoying continuity from obsessing about it. For example, I like that Spider-Man and the Human Torch have an established, long-running friednly rivalry. But if Spidey quips offhand to Johnny, "How come we always fight bad guys, instead of going to the Mets game?" I'm not going to flip out on a message board about how this completely ignores when they fought Hypno-Head at Shea Stadium in Superlative Spider-Man #13.

If it gets to the point where you're making flow charts, and every post you make reads like an entry from the Marve Universe Handbook, you have a problem.

And I, too, would watch the sex-change freebasing Norm episode. Especially if she was played by Alyssa Milano.

[Joe Rice]

All I'm talking about is there is being a slave to continuity, and there's following your own shit. And there's a difference. And I'm not talking about the "she has a tail or legs or nothing, damnit!" thing, I'm talking about when something happens on a more massive scale.


To me, that can be anything from "whatever you write IN THIS STORY" to "the full blah blah blah tapestry."

It's the freedom I want, not an abolition of continuity. I want it optional.

I don't think you're shallow for enjoying continuity. I just want to have the choice to ignore it if I'm a writer.

[Gaz]

To me, that can be anything from "whatever you write IN THIS STORY" to "the full blah blah blah tapestry."

It's the freedom I want, not an abolition of continuity. I want it optional.

I don't think you're shallow for enjoying continuity. I just want to have the choice to ignore it if I'm a writer.
For the most part you can. Don't like Lois being married to Clark? Then don't mention that. Don't want to have to use the same Braniac? Make up another killer robot and call it Maniac.
And I've always found the need to seperate media, even when they share qualities strange. As a continuing medium, comics share a lot with TV. As a visual medium, both share something with movies.
Question: Can you/would you enjoy a novel, or movie or TV show, where each chapter/scene/episode had the same basic set-up, but changed or ignored details established in the previous one?

[Gaz]

What "thin veneer"? Was the show somehow realer before that? Could you not enjoy a well-written freebasing female Norm episode?

What I'm talking about is what I want, and what other people want. Before superhero comics became slaves to continuity, anyone could pick up an issue and enjoy it. Now, fewer and fewer people enjoy them, in the middle of a cultural time when the ideas are taking off in other media.
You're acting like 24, the West Wing, Sopranos, Lost and dozens of other popular shows DO use continuity.
And kids also care about it. If you tell a story about Sir Knightly, and how he fought the blue dragon, and then the next day try and tell them how he finished off the green giant snake, they're gonna cry foul, because you're getting it wrong, no matter how well or compellingly told the story is, you're ruining the story for them.

[StoneGold]

To me, that can be anything from "whatever you write IN THIS STORY" to "the full blah blah blah tapestry."

It's the freedom I want, not an abolition of continuity. I want it optional.

I don't think you're shallow for enjoying continuity. I just want to have the choice to ignore it if I'm a writer.
But then there's that issue of why try to get work for hire doing Noseless Boy when you want to write him with no ears? Go make Earless Boy.


I guess what I'm complaining about more is when an interpretation of a character breaks with continuity and changes everything we know about a character without any kind of explanation whatsoever. Hudlin's Black Panther is a good example of that. I'll be honest, if it was Ultimate Black Panther, it wouldn't be half as bad. But trying to shoehorn it into the rest of a shared universe concept, it's too much of a change. That, and it just isn't very well written.

If you don't want to work in a shared universe, then don't. Recognize there are certain limitations to working in a shared universe. And if you don't want to work within a shared universe concept, fine, don't. But don't write something that should exist outside the shared universe, then try to shove it in.

It's like if I peed in the sink, and then complained about you yelling at me for peeing in the sink because you're holding back my artistic freedom to pee where I want. It's perfectly fine for me to pee in my own sink at home, but I don't own your sink.

[Kid Omega]

Continuity works in Spider-man. It is integral to why people read the book. Aunt May can't be dead and then come back with no explanation.

Superman is a different story. As long as a few key things are there (reporter, unrequited love, strange visitor, dead planet, etc...) Superman works. Hey check it out- we all know he's from Kansas, but what if he goes home to Nebraska one day? NO BIG FUCKING DEAL. Is Metropolis on the Atlantic coast or the Great Lakes? Doesn't matter.

He's still Superman.

If you're caught up in the month to month trials and details of these iconic characters, you're missing the point. If YOU, as a single reader, enjoy the bullshit details of his marriage, don't think that that is how it's supposed to be. I happen to like Dan Clowes' Sensual Santa better than the Coca-Cola version, but that don't mean that that's how Santa should be.

If you're over twenty-five, Superman is not yours. It's okay to love him dearly (as I do), but understand that there is an ICON at play, and the version that is imprinted on the brains of ten year olds everywhere is the Real Superman.

As long as he flies, fights bad guys, and is from another planet, that's all that matters.

If you read consecutive issues and the details contradict, and it ruins the story for you, then that's your beef to get over. Not Superman's.

I don't know how people get so wrapped up in this continuity stuff. If I read a Batman book next week, and Alfred is fat and Irish and Robin twelve years old and Gordon is back and Batgirl is a redhead, it is not going to upset me. It really isn't. And if it does upset you, maybe you've outgrown these stories, and should stop applying your "realism" standards to them.

Enjoy them for what they are. The small group of fans that demand tightly locked continuity are making the DCU so fucking boring, no one else can read it anymore.

(And before any one else throws SEVEN SOLDIERS into the discussion, it's a different animal. It uses internal continuity to tell a larger story. Again (sigh), sometimes continuity is essential. Sometimes not.)

-a

[K'Nort]

What's the difference between Spider-Man and Superman?

[StoneGold]

What's the difference between Spider-Man and Superman?
Apparently, according to Stan Lee in Amazing #3, nothing.

[Davideaux]

I like some continuity to my superheroes. I don't want them reliving the same adventures time and again. I'd like their stories to have meaning and relevance to the character. However, a grown up Spider-man doesn't help the financial bottom line very well. I realize this and sadly it's kind of alienated me from the stories. I'm not a slave to continuity but I want to feel like my two-fifty was well spent and not wasted on a nonsense story.

[StoneGold]

I think the point most of the pro-continuity people have been trying to make is while you don't have to be a slave to continuity, it can behoove you to make continuity your slave.

[Kid Omega]

What's the difference between Spider-Man and Superman?

Superman- A character that for his first thirty years had no significant sequential continuity. His popularity is based on a few key elements, all of which are simple and easy to grasp.

Spiderman- A character whose soap opera started in issue one, and whose popularity is based on a series of will he or won't he cliffhangers. For the majority of his existence, Spider-man, was constantly choosing between girls, hanging up his suit, trying to get through college.

Just look at the movies...

At the end of Superman II, all is as it should be, Lois knows nothing, Clark is sad, Superman is a hero.

At the end of Spidey 2, thre are like three different dangling sub-plots, imminent danger, and unanswered questions.

Two very different characters that work for very different reasons...

-a

[Charles RB]

As long as he flies, fights bad guys, and is from another planet, that's all that matters.

No, then he's the same guy as the Martian Manhunter. Only slightly duller, due to not being green and all.

I don't know how people get so wrapped up in this continuity stuff. If I read a Batman book next week, and Alfred is fat and Irish and Robin twelve years old and Gordon is back and Batgirl is a redhead, it is not going to upset me. It really isn't. And if it does upset you, maybe you've outgrown these stories

If I was eight-years-old and reading Batman and suddenly Alfred is fat and Irish and Robin twelve years old and Gordon is back and Batgirl is a redhead, I'd be pissed off. And so would a lot of other eight-year-olds who'd be wanting to know where the real Alfred, Robin et al were. Kids like continuity.

[Kid Omega]

CHARACTERS THAT ARE IMMENSELY POPULAR WITHOUT CONTINUITY
Asterix
James Bond (movies)
Superman (see animated)
Batman
Wonder Woman
Donald Duck
Snoopy
Captain America
Sgt. Rock
Zorro
Larry David

CHARACTERS THAT WORK WELL WITHIN A CONTINUITY AND ARE VERY BELOVED
Spider-man
Buffy
Luke Skywalker
Conan
J.R. Ewing
Daredevil
The Simpsons
Tony Soprano

[Charles RB]

Batman

Batman has continuity though. Has for decades.

Wonder Woman

Same again.

Captain America

Same again.

[Kid Omega]

No, then he's the same guy as the Martian Manhunter. Only slightly duller, due to not being green and all.



If I was eight-years-old and reading Batman and suddenly Alfred is fat and Irish and Robin twelve years old and Gordon is back and Batgirl is a redhead, I'd be pissed off. And so would a lot of other eight-year-olds who'd be wanting to know where the real Alfred, Robin et al were. Kids like continuity.

The "real" Alfred is a Butler who has been remarkably malleable in the past sixty years. As long as he's a Butler, and British, he's Alfred.

When I was eight, and I read a Neal Adams reprint in the same sitting as a Bob Kane reprint and a current issue, all were wildly different, and none of them upset me at all.

The kids that shop here read Teen Titans Go, and I promise you, if the status quo started to evolve, and things started to change from month to month and there was a serialized continuity, they would lose interest PDF.

Do some kids get wrapped up in the details? Of course. But I thought we wanted a ton of kids reading comics, not just the few the proud the obsessive.

Kids, in general, like consistency of broad concepts. Continuity is another animal, and I don't think kids care as much as you seem to think. How many ten year olds were rushing out to pick up CRISIS?

-a

[Spackling Compound]

The "real" Alfred is a Butler who has been remarkably malleable in the past sixty years. As long as he's a Butler, and British, he's Alfred.

When I was eight, and I read a Neal Adams reprint in the same sitting as a Bob Kane reprint and a current issue, all were wildly different, and none of them upset me at all.

The kids that shop here read Teen Titans Go, and I promise you, if the status quo started to evolve, and things started to change from month to month and there was a serialized continuity, they would lose interest PDF.

Do some kids get wrapped up in the details? Of course. But I thought we wanted a ton of kids reading comics, not just the few the proud the obsessive.

Kids, in general, like consistency of broad concepts. Continuity is another animal, and I don't think kids care as much as you seem to think. How many ten year olds were rushing out to pick up CRISIS?

-a
That's what I was saying in my post.
When the idealism and suspension of belief given to children is replaced with literalism and cynicism, it may be time to move off of comics and onto something else.

[west3man]

Do some kids get wrapped up in the details? Of course. But I thought we wanted a ton of kids reading comics, not just the few the proud the obsessive.
Whenever the "What do you like about 'drinking'?" rears its head, there are frequent reminders that "drinking" doesn't mean "drunk."

Similarly, "preferring continuity" isn't the same thing as "continuity-obsessed."

I'm confident that you know this and maybe you aren't trying to say this, but these are the terms with which you keep framing this discussion. You've got some great points, but they're harder to see from the other side of a really big paintbrush.

[Gumbo Maximillian]

I think part of the problem is that people are saying continuity is responsible for driving away the fanbase, when continuity existed before the nineties, its been going since the sixties and seventies (late fifties even).

Which would then seem to point out that argument to be incorrect.

Of course it might be argued that canon while around wasn't as strong or indepth, well quite frankly canon aint that strong nowaydays and most writers don't really do anything that requires the use of previous stories to work.

Another thing to consider without some level of canon; the mythology itself won't stay intact.

Superman wears a costume and is from another world?
Lex Luthor is his worst enemy?
Superman's abitlies are all "Super"?
Lois Lane is his girl friday?

Canon; don't matter so forget these things.

Who cares about continuity, just write a good story.

Canon's needed; if you want to actually read a story about Superman then its necessary, otherwise the character would change in big and small ways over the years to be completely unrecognizable.

Of course change is going to happen anyways and it isn't a bad thing when it does if done well.

Changes in history, basis of power, characterization change with the times and writers no matter how much it gets fought since its a serial product.

Can the changes lose fans occasionally?

Yes; I remember as a kid I stopped watching a soap opera because they got a new actor. Sure they wrote him the same but the guy looked different and acted differently, it wasn't the same character anymore and that completely turned me off from the show.

But you shouldn't refuse change in fear of losing fans because then you just stagnate.

Basically continuity within a short period of time should tried to be refrained too; if its from years and years ago and hasn't been referenced since its easier to ignore it.

But as shown by the letter at the beginning of this thread, even back in '59 ten year old kids would wonder what is up with two stories set within a couple months of each other writter and edited by the same people that can't keep the story or the myth part right, Mermaids have tails, everybody knows that.

[west3man]

Here's another CBR column that touches on the c-word (not that one. I mean "continuity," you perv). And for those keeping count, this one's not on "my side," but after reading halfway through, I thought it was pretty interesting and relevant to the discussion.

It's Erik Larsen's "One Fan's Opinion." (http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/?column=20)

[Ed Cunard]

Here's another CBR column that touches on the c-word (not that one. I mean "continuity," you perv). And for those keeping count, this one's not on "my side," but after reading halfway through, I thought it was pretty interesting and relevant to the discussion.


Man, imagine if you had a typo in the bolded part.

[howyadoin]

I'm moved by writing. I mean, it's splitting hairs, but I don't really give a damn about imaginary people. It's art that can move me.Did you cry when Old Yeller died?

[west3man]

Man, imagine if you had a typo in the bolded part.
That's exactly the kinda typo I'd make, too.

[Spackling Compound]

Man, imagine if you had a typo in the bolded part
The same...

[Joe Rice]

I think the point most of the pro-continuity people have been trying to make is while you don't have to be a slave to continuity, it can behoove you to make continuity your slave.

And you seem to be missing that we agree there's nothing inherently wrong with continuity.

It's just not necessary for a good story, and it shouldn't be forced on anyone.

[Ray R.]

Here's another CBR column that touches on the c-word (not that one. I mean "continuity," you perv). And for those keeping count, this one's not on "my side," but after reading halfway through, I thought it was pretty interesting and relevant to the discussion.

It's Erik Larsen's "One Fan's Opinion." (http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/?column=20)


Sounds like it was based on THIS discussion, right down to talking about the Atlantis of Aquaman and Superman respectively, and multiple earths and multiple futures.

Coinkidink? I think not....

I do agree with Larsen's points, though. Glad to see Image not obsessing on continuity, though it probably will always be a moot point with creator-owned books being developed and produced more or less independently of each other. It's part of why I think they've REALLY improved over the last couple of years. That, and books like Death Jr., Invincible, the Walking Dead, etc..

[Joe Rice]

Did you cry when Old Yeller died?

I think so. I was seven.

But that's not the point. I get teary-eyed at dumb Kodak commercials. That's "artistic" manipulation. Not because I give a damn about little Jenny's birthday party.

[Kid Omega]

I think so. I was seven.

But that's not the point. I get teary-eyed at dumb Kodak commercials. That's "artistic" manipulation. Not because I give a damn about little Jenny's birthday par