Reliable Gossip (Morrison, et al)
laba...@web.berkeley.edu
Well, I got to talking with Grant Morrison and Art Young during their stop
in Berkeley to push Arkham Asylum (as if they needed to), and came up with
some interesting insights into what's going to happen in the DC multiverse
this year; Hearsay follows...
LEGION '90
Well, Bek has indeed found a very young Emerald Eye - Art says that there's
going to be some big changes in Bek's personality; I'm hoping for a change
from the wimpy whiner to a dark, powerful whiner. Also, Vril Dox will hunt
down his father in order to kill him in a crossover with A.o.Superman come
Annual time. Next issue: LEGION acronym revealed!
Animal Man
Morrison says that Crisis will be undone (yay!)! He is reportedly getting
hell from the powers that be in DC, but he says that all is said and done.
Issue 26 will be the last of the Morrison run, after which Pete "Skreemer"
Milligan will take over. Morrison also says that Animal Man will be left
with a clean slate after he's done with him, which seems to indicate some
amount of Multiple Earth funny business.
In general:
One of the DC bigwigs went to the Warner Execs after the Swamp Thing/Veitch
fiasco with a comprehensive slide show of the various categories of comics
and so it is understood that the "Suggested for Mature Readers" title are
the equivalent of a Warner Bros. "R" rated movie - Thank God!
Wheeler is doing Swampie for the forseeable future, which doesn't bother me
a bit, but this is just a confirmation.
** IMPORTANT **
There are rumblings in the editorial staff about bringing back the Justice
Society! Mail them at once urging you support!
That's it - this has been a public service announcement of your friendly
neighborhood rumor monger.
Kwei-Cee Chu What you do in your sleep I wouldn't even
laba...@web.berkeley.edu do in my dreams! - Jasmine Yamasaki
Michael K. Ellis
|Well, I got to talking with Grant Morrison and Art Young during their stop
|in Berkeley to push Arkham Asylum (as if they needed to), and came up with
|some interesting insights into what's going to happen in the DC multiverse
|this year; Hearsay follows...
|Morrison says that Crisis will be undone (yay!)! He is reportedly getting
|hell from the powers that be in DC, but he says that all is said and done.
|Issue 26 will be the last of the Morrison run, after which Pete "Skreemer"
|Milligan will take over. Morrison also says that Animal Man will be left
|with a clean slate after he's done with him, which seems to indicate some
|amount of Multiple Earth funny business.
Does this mean we can have Kara back? *Please?*
|Kwei-Cee Chu What you do in your sleep I wouldn't even
|laba...@web.berkeley.edu do in my dreams! - Jasmine Yamasaki
Well, it couldn't hurt to ask. Sigh. Merry Christmas all.
Michael K. Ellis el...@ocf.berkeley.edu
c60a...@WEB.berkeley.edu
ryan d mathews
>Morrison says that Crisis will be undone (yay!)!
>Kwei-Cee Chu
Yay? YAY!!! What for the yay? If they are truly going to undo the
Crisis, as in bring back Earth-2, Earth-S, Earth-X, Earth-465284, ad
nauseum, then I may just have to curtail my buying of DC comics. The
Infinite Earths are what made me avoid DC like the plague; I couldn't
understand the goddamn continuity! I much prefered Marvel where there
was only one universe in which anything important happened and
alternate Earths were just that, *alternate* Earths. Not important
Earths whose denizens you had to catalogue and keep separate if you
wanted to read the story without going batty.
Now I know they may not have done what they did exactly right. But
something needed to be done. DC had nearly 50 years of ignoring
continuity to fix.
If they totally undo the Crisis and bring back those "Crisis on
Earth-Stupid" plots that drove me nuts trying to keep everything
straight, well, I may have my Marvel-Zombie-ometer reinstalled.
---------- Ryan Mathews
Plug: Official R.A.C Comics Awards Poll, coming soon!
Internet : mat...@cs.buffalo.edu Bitnet : mathews@sunybcs
UUCP :{apple,cornell,decwrl,harvard,rutgers,talcott,ucbvax,uunet}!
cs.buffalo.edu!mathews
Andrew Farmer
[laba...@WEB.berkeley.edu]:
>Animal Man
>Morrison says that Crisis will be undone (yay!)! He is reportedly getting
>hell from the powers that be in DC, but he says that all is said and done.
>Issue 26 will be the last of the Morrison run, after which Pete "Skreemer"
>Milligan will take over. Morrison also says that Animal Man will be left
>with a clean slate after he's done with him, which seems to indicate some
>amount of Multiple Earth funny business.
Well this could be good news. Milligan is a perverse and brilliant
writer who could do anything with a book like ANIMAL MAN. He is quite
capable of stamping his own identity on a book - I hope to see an Animal
Man as different from Morrison's as Morrison's DOOM PATROL was different to
the Paul Kupperberg version.
arf
Christmas: Get drunk, fall over, hit a copper.
Kwei-Cee Chu
>In article <1989Dec19.2...@agate.berkeley.edu>
>laba...@WEB.berkeley.edu () writes:
>>Morrison says that Crisis will be undone (yay!)!
>Yay? YAY!!! What for the yay? If they are truly going to undo the
>Crisis, as in bring back Earth-2, Earth-S, Earth-X, Earth-465284, ad
>nauseum, then I may just have to curtail my buying of DC comics. The
>Infinite Earths are what made me avoid DC like the plague; I couldn't
>understand the goddamn continuity! I much prefered Marvel where there
>was only one universe in which anything important happened
There is a slight problem now with Marvel Comics - Those infinite Earths
that you can't follow continuity in are more a feature (bug?) of the
Marvel Universe more than DC. I sight for example Rachel of Excalibur,
whom I believe to be of an alternate Earth, and as for continuity in
Marvel, it is my considered opinion that Marvel is more screwed up than
DC ever was. This is the product of many factors, the most obvious one
being the constant turnover of various artists and writers in various
titles, leading to "new life" at best, but more often producing glaring
inconsistencies in well-known chartacters. Anyways...
>If they totally undo the Crisis and bring back those "Crisis on
>Earth-Stupid" plots that drove me nuts trying to keep everything
>straight, well, I may have my Marvel-Zombie-ometer reinstalled.
I do not in the least expect DC to start the multiple Earth business in
the mainstream, perhaps limiting the effect of this Anti-Crisis to just
Animal Man. However, some of DC's finest stories were multiple Earth
tales, and though I agree with you that this Earth-465284 business can
get confusing, that is in no means justification for denigrating it out
of hand - it is not right to shut down a medium of art just out of fear
of mediocrity.
> ---------- Ryan Mathews
> Plug: Official R.A.C Comics Awards Poll, coming soon!
Merry/Happy [insert your favorite holiday here]!
Evan Mitchell
>laba...@WEB.berkeley.edu () writes:
>
>>Morrison says that Crisis will be undone (yay!)!
>
>>Kwei-Cee Chu
>
>Yay? YAY!!! What for the yay? If they are truly going to undo the
>Crisis, as in bring back Earth-2, Earth-S, Earth-X, Earth-465284, ad
>nauseum, then I may just have to curtail my buying of DC comics. The
>Infinite Earths are what made me avoid DC like the plague; I couldn't
>understand the goddamn continuity! I much prefered Marvel where there
>was only one universe in which anything important happened and
>alternate Earths were just that, *alternate* Earths. Not important
>Earths whose denizens you had to catalogue and keep separate if you
>wanted to read the story without going batty.
>
look at the Squadon Supreme, look at Immortus and Kang. The scary thing is
I actually LIKE those aspects of Marvel. They aren't the problem, mutants are
the problem...but that's another story. I used to love the Marvel Universe
for it's continuity. I hate it (the DeFalco Universe) now. I also used to
hate the DC continuity problems. However, as much as I loved the Crisis
series, and as much as I like the DC universe now, I cannot stand having so
many heroes on one Earth. I hate the idea of having Superman and Captain
Marvel in the same place. I hate infinity inc., etc., etc.
Do you realize that if the Charleton heroes weren't on "Earth-1" that Watchman
could have been about them?
Speaking of Watchman, did Moore create the "Omniverse" that we see in Excaliber?
>If they totally undo the Crisis and bring back those "Crisis on
>Earth-Stupid" plots that drove me nuts trying to keep everything
>straight, well, I may have my Marvel-Zombie-ometer reinstalled.
NOOOOOO! Don't become a Marvel Zombie again! Given the caliber of creators
DC has, I don't think that the DC Universe will regress into the mess that
it once was.
>
> ---------- Ryan Mathews
-Evan
_______________________________________________________________________________
| Evan Jay Mitchell EECS/ERL Industrial Liaison Program |
| mitc...@janus.berkeley.edu University of California at Berkeley |
| Phone: (415) 643-6687 |
| "Think, it ain't illegal...yet!" - George Clinton |
|_____________________________________________________________________________|
Secretary of the Stratosphere
} Do you realize that if the Charleton heroes weren't on "Earth-1" that
} Watchman could have been about them?
Nope. Not true. There are two principle reasons why WATCHMEN wasn't about
the Charlton heroes. First, Dick Giordano was editor at Charlton during
its "golden age" of superheroes in the mid-60's. He was in part responsible
for those comics and characters being what they are. It was his nostalgic
feelings for the characters that made him push for DC to acquire the rights
for them. He wanted the characters to return from publishing limbo, and was
not about to see most of them killed off. Secondly, DC just paid good money
for the rights to the characters. To kill most of them off in their first
go-round at DC just wouldn't make any economic sense.
} Speaking of Watchman, did Moore create the "Omniverse" that we see in
} Excaliber?
Yes and no. The concept was created in the UK-only Black Knight strip in
HULK WEEKLY, in which Captain Britain was a co-star. CB's adventures on
the alternate world of Earth-238 were created and written by Dave Thorpe,
as were Saturnyne and the Dimensional Development Corps. Moore simply
expanded on the idea, and created the "Captain Corps" (as it were).
As far the series of alternate universes within the Marvel Multiverse,
the difference between those and DC's was that at DC, the parallel Earths
(at least Earth-1, -2, -X, and -S) were an integral part of the continuity.
At Marvel, they were mostly throwaways. The Squadron Supreme's Earth is
the only one that has really been more than just a throwaway, and even
that has not been as integrated with the regular Marvel Earth as Earth-2
had been with Earth-1 in the DC realm.
"... You're damned if you do, and damned if you don't."
"But that's not *fair*!"
"Of course it's not fair. We're *evil*. Look it up."
--- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, "The Mill", Maynard, MA)
UUCP: ...!decwrl!ruby.enet.dec.com!boyajian
jus...@inmet.inmet.com
/* Written 6:06 pm Dec 19, 1989 by laba...@WEB.berkeley.edu in inmet:rec.arts.comics */
/* ---------- "Reliable Gossip (Morrison, et al)" ---------- */
[...]
Animal Man
Issue 26 will be the last of the Morrison run, after which Pete "Skreemer"
Milligan will take over.
[...]
Kwei-Cee Chu What you do in your sleep I wouldn't even
laba...@web.berkeley.edu do in my dreams! - Jasmine Yamasaki
/* End of text from inmet:rec.arts.comics */
Oh, *really*? [Eyebrow raises.] This definitely makes my "good news of the
month" list. I'd figured that they would just get someone in who would
attempt to slavishly imitate Morrisson's style; I'm *very* glad to see that
they're getting an author with a mind of his own to take up the reins...
-- Justin du Coeur
John Marek
>Animal Man
>Morrison says that Crisis will be undone (yay!)! He is reportedly getting
>hell from the powers that be in DC, but he says that all is said and done.
Probably the strongest case for the Crisis is that after 4 years, none of the
changes have been undone. Compare this to the Secret Wars series where most
of the changes were reversed by the end of the mini-series (in the crossovers,
some changes were undone by the end of the same issue!).
While the Crisis did cause some continuity problems (mostly for LoSH and JSA)
overall it set the stage for many of the better things DC has done since that
time.
Also, I see no problem with a "mini-Crisis" with a single character like
Animal Man going through the Crisis again and emerging changed. The problems
are that few writers could handle it well and DC must resist the temptation to
allow more than one or two characters to go through such a change.
>There are rumblings in the editorial staff about bringing back the Justice
>Society! Mail them at once urging you support!
Depends on what this means. If it means a comic set in the 40's-50's-60's
(hopefully by Roy Thomas), I'm for it. If it means releasing them from
Ragnarok into the modern-day world, forget it.
John.
--
John Marek jma...@td2cad.intel.com
Any opinions in the above text are my own but feel welcome to use them.
Cthulhu's Jersey Epopt
mathews) writes:
> Yeah, Marvel's got alternate Earths. But not Infinite Earths.
If you've got alternates, you've got infinite alternates. DC never made a
point about "Infinite" earths until CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS was created to do
away with them.
> AltEarths in Marvel tend to be "plot-specific", i.e. they are invented
> for one specific purpose, like Rachel's Earth-Phoenix-Doesn't-Die.
> They didn't do what DC did : create another Earth specifically for
> the purpose of explaining Golden Age stories.
Huh? "The reason I prefer Marvel's alternate earths over DC's is that Marvel's
AltEarths are invented for one specific purpose, but DC's Earths are invented
for *one specific purpose*." Oh, now I get it. %-P
> I stand by my the statement I said before, that Marvel has but one
> universe in which anything *important* happens.
As did pre-Crisis DC.
> If another universe is mentioned, it is because someone from the mainstream
> universe did some continuity hopping.
As in pre-Crisis DC.
> There has never been a book based in one of these universes, save for WHAT
> IF--? and SQUADRON SUPREME.
And pre-Crisis DC never had a book based in one of *its* alternate universes,
except for SHAZAM! and ALL-STAR in its various (successive) incarnations:
revival, SQUADRON, and YOUNG.
And you're forgetting the New Universe books. What are they, if not Marvel
books based in an alternate universe?
> DC, on the other hand, had Earth-1, Earth-2, Earth-S, and, if you want
> to get picky, even Earth-X and Earth-4, all of which were homes to
> major important characters and heroes which at some time had their own
> books. It was very confusing.
Yes, all these earths had "major important characters and heroes which at some
time had their own books", but most of those books were Golden Age and none of
them affected the present mainstream DC universe. The parallel earths only
turned up in the mainstream when they were "plot-specific", which is what you
said you liked in Marvel.
I didn't have any problem with DC's parallel earths when I first read about
them, when I was (counts on fingers) about 7 years old, and I didn't have any
problem with them during CRISIS. The smushed-together *uni*verse that resulted
from CRISIS I *do* have problems with.
--
Yog-Sothoth Neblod Zin,
Chris Jarocha-Ernst
UUCP: {ames, att, harvard, moss, seismo}!rutgers!elbereth.rutgers.edu!cje
ARPA: JAROCH...@CANCER.RUTGERS.EDU
CCIS, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08855-0879
ryan d mathews
(Kwei-Cee Chu) writes:
>In article <15...@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>
mat...@sybil.cs.Buffalo.EDU.UUCP (ryan d mathews) writes:
>>The Infinite Earths are what made me avoid DC like the plague; I
>>couldn't understand the goddamn continuity!
>There is a slight problem now with Marvel Comics - Those infinite Earths
>that you can't follow continuity in are more a feature (bug?) of the
>Marvel Universe more than DC. I cite for example Rachel of Excalibur,
>whom I believe to be of an alternate Earth...
>Kwei-Cee Chu
Yeah, Marvel's got alternate Earths. But not Infinite Earths.
AltEarths in Marvel tend to be "plot-specific", i.e. they are invented
for one specific purpose, like Rachel's Earth-Phoenix-Doesn't-Die.
They didn't do what DC did : create another Earth specifically for
the purpose of explaining Golden Age stories.
I stand by my the statement I said before, that Marvel has but one
universe in which anything *important* happens. If another universe is
mentioned, it is because someone from the mainstream universe did some
continuity hopping. There has never been a book based in one of these
universes, save for WHAT IF--? and SQUADRON SUPREME.
DC, on the other hand, had Earth-1, Earth-2, Earth-S, and, if you want
to get picky, even Earth-X and Earth-4, all of which were homes to
major important characters and heroes which at some time had their own
books. It was very confusing.
---------- Ryan Mathews
Plug: Official R.A.C Comic Awards Poll, coming soon!
Kenneth W. Crist Jr.
> There has never been a book based in one of these universes, save for WHAT
> IF--? and SQUADRON SUPREME.
You so blithly dismiss WHAT IF?, but you can't. According to the
Watcher there are infinite Earths. Period. Full Stop. Saying they are not
important doesn't change the fact that they exist. It changes the nature of
the Marvel Universe because they exist.
Then there is the Squadron Supreme Earth. It has been used in at
least six seperate stories. It is no longer plot-specific but a real alternate
world with characters that have had their own book and a graphic novel.
The stories? Avengers 85-86, 141-144,147-149
Defenders: somewhere around 110 (I forget which)
Squadron Supreme: 1-12
Squadron Supreme GN
Thor: 280
> DC, on the other hand, had Earth-1, Earth-2, Earth-S, and, if you want
> to get picky, even Earth-X and Earth-4, all of which were homes to
> major important characters and heroes which at some time had their own
> books. It was very confusing.
It was far from confusing. Earth-1 was the DC Universe. Earth-2 had
the Golden age heroes. What's confusing about that? I find it no more
confusing than Marvel saying that Arkon comes from a parallel Earth, that
Warlock's original run took place on Counter-Earth (directly opposite Marvel
Earth but a different history), that Counter-Earth was moved to another
galaxy, the Squadron Supreme takes place on yet another parallel Earth, and
that the imaginay story in WHAT IF #4 (original series) actually took place in
the Marvel Universe. That's not very confusing, is it?
About the various Earths:
Earth-4 appeared and dies in CRISIS.
Earth-X - home of the Freedom Fighters. Appeared in JLA 107-108,
ALL-STAR SQUADRON 31-34, in flashbacks a few other places.
The FREEDOM FIGHTERS book took place on Earth-1. After it
was canceled DC said the FF returned there.
Earth-S - appeared in JLA 135-137. Home of the Fawcett characters.
After this only the Marvels appeared a few other times.
None of these worlds were necessary to understand the DC Universe.
Their histories were if no importance to Superman, Batman, Flash or Wonder
Woman. So there were other Earths that had super-heroes, big deal. With the
exception of Captain Marvel none of the heroes from these worlds were very
well known to most readers, nor are they very big names now. When is the
last time you saw Lady Quark? How often does the Human Bomb pop up in BATMAN or
JUSTICE LEAGUE EUROPE? DC can't even use characters like Spy Smasher, Bulletman
or Captain Sacrlet & Pinky anymore.
There may have been problems with the DC parallel universe concept,
I don't agree, but it is possible. Most of the criticism I hear is the same
though "It was too confusing to understand." This sounds to me like people
just repeating a complaint they have heard from others and so adding to the
number of complaints.
I find the number of mutants in the Marvel Universe too numerous
to keep track of. Should Marvel therefore restrict itself to one mutant and
only one? That would certainly keep down the confusion and I would only have
to know the history of one mutant.
Star-Lord
They were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Naturally they became heroes.
ryan d mathews
Jr.) writes:
> You so blithly dismiss WHAT IF?, but you can't. According to the
>Watcher there are infinite Earths. Period. Full Stop. Saying they are not
>important doesn't change the fact that they exist. It changes the nature of
>the Marvel Universe because they exist.
No it doesn't. Why? Because these Earths have no significance! They
don't mean anything! You don't have to keep track of the citizens of
every alternate Earth proposed in WHAT IF--?, because they're never
going to make a difference. (Actually there is one exception to this
rule, but it is voided because it was declared to have taken place in
the mainstream universe.) You can't possibly say that Earth-"What If
Iron Man Lost the Iron Wars" is comparable to Earth-2 in terms of
their roles in their respective companies histories.
And besides, IMHO, WHAT IF--? is just that, "What If?". It's just a
"let's see" writing exercise, Uatu's dramatic comments
notwithstanding. If you fully believe that every story in WHAT IF--?
should be catalogued as another honest-to-gosh addition to the Marvel
Multiverse then you need to take a deep breath and a reality pill.
> Then there is the Squadron Supreme Earth.
I've granted this one. It's one of the reasons I'm not fond of the
Squadron Supreme.
> About the various Earths:
...
> Earth-S - appeared in JLA 135-137. Home of the Fawcett characters.
> After this only the Marvels appeared a few other times.
What about all the classic Captain Marvel books? What about the first
SHAZAM! series?
> None of these worlds were necessary to understand the DC Universe.
>Their histories were if no importance to Superman, Batman, Flash or Wonder
>Woman.
I can think of one super-heroine right off that required multiple
histories to understand. The Black Canary. She was a hero with a
rather long life-span. When DC realized she couldn't possibly have
fought in the time of the JSA and still be in her 20's she magically
became the daughter of the *original* Black Canary. But wait! The
original Black Canary was from Earth-2! So Black Canary was said to
have migrated from one world to another.
>So there were other Earths that had super-heroes, big deal.
It's quite a big deal when they have the *same* super-heroes. I'm not
talking about quirky weird versions of super-heroes as in the
EXCALIBUR worlds. I'm talking about real, but now alternate, versions
of super-heroes who once had their own books. Keeping the histories
straight of two Supermen, Wonder Women, Batmen, Green Lanterns, etc.,
is more work than I want to engage in when I read a comic.
>Most of the criticism I hear is the same
>though "It was too confusing to understand." This sounds to me like people
>just repeating a complaint they have heard from others and so adding to the
>number of complaints.
>Star-Lord
I assure you, that's not the case with me. I read a friend's entire
collection of old JLA's, and with it a lot of the annual JLA/JSA
teamups. I remember reading a JLA/JSA/All-Star Squadron team-up
enititled (I think) "Crisis on Earth-Prime". It took place on Earth-1,
Earth-2, and Earth-Prime, and in various eras on all three Earths. My
head was spinning by the time they were done from trying to keep the
plot straight in my head.
You may find it quite easy to understand the Infinite Earths, but I
get the picture that you have been collecting DC's for quite some time
and are thus are already familiar with it. I wasn't when I read
"Crisis on Earth-Prime", indeed, I was a recovering Marvel Zombie who
was attempting to crawl out of the dark recesses of comic fandom and
actually read something that wasn't published by the House of "Ideas".
I read that story and I had to ask "What the heck is all the fuss
about? I can't even understand this comic, let alone enjoy it!" Since
the Crisis, I have been buying more and more DCs and less and less
Marvels. I am finally getting a good grasp of the DC Universe and I
don't want to be plunged into confusion again.
I will still stand by my original statement : that the Marvel
Universe is one main universe, surrounded by insignificant little
ones, and that the old DC multiverse was *two* main universes
connected to a few more of slightly lesser importance and then
surrounded by insignificant little ones. They *are* different
concepts.
Cthulhu's Jersey Epopt
on why he prefers Marvel's "What If? Worlds" to DC's former "Infinite Earths":
> ... these Earths have no significance!... You don't have to keep track of the
> citizens of every alternate Earth proposed in WHAT IF--?, because they're
> never going to make a difference.
I fail to see what was so difficult (and "was" is the operative word) about
keeping track of events on Earth-2. There were no dramatic changes to human
life there. Essentially, Earth-2 was like Earth-1, except that different
super-heroes lived there.
> I can think of one super-heroine right off that required multiple histories
> to understand. The Black Canary.... So Black Canary was said to have
> migrated from one world to another.
Exactly. So why do you need to worry about the multiple earths any more? She
was there, now she's here. It's her adventures here that we read about.
> It's quite a big deal when they have the *same* super-heroes. I'm not talking
> about quirky weird versions of super-heroes as in the EXCALIBUR worlds. I'm
> talking about real, but now alternate, versions of super-heroes who once had
> their own books. Keeping the histories straight of two Supermen, Wonder
> Women, Batmen, Green Lanterns, etc., is more work than I want to engage in
> when I read a comic.
When were you asked to keep such histories straight? Whenever one of the E-2
versions appeared, there was the "Earth-2 ... vibrational duplicate ... blah
blah blah" caption, and that was all you needed to know for the purposes of the
story.
As a continuity freak, *I* cared about such histories, but those are my tastes.
Certainly the average reader, who never heard of the Spinner, the Jackal, or
Peter Dale, didn't care whether it was the Batman of Earth-1 or Earth-2 (or
both) who fought them. And other than such adversaries, the histories of the
two characters were pretty much identical.
In general, why should it be any harder to keep track of an Earth-2 character's
history than the WW2 history of, say, Captain America?
> I remember reading a JLA/JSA/All-Star Squadron team-up enititled (I think)
> "Crisis on Earth-Prime". It took place on Earth-1, Earth-2, and Earth-Prime,
> and in various eras on all three Earths. My head was spinning by the time
> they were done from trying to keep the plot straight in my head.
This also had Per Degaton and the Crime Syndicate of Earth-3, right? (That's
the only JLA/JSA/All-Star Squad team-up I know of.) No wonder you were
confused. This story not only jumped between parallel worlds *and* between
different times on those worlds, it jumped between issues of JLA and ALL-STAR
SQ.! This was one of Roy Thomas's "clever ideas that shouldn't have been
done". I'd say your problem is actually with bad plotting, not the parallel
worlds concept in general.
(Thomas had tried to pull this same stunt at Marvel, BTW, in some issues of FF.
He had Arkon's dimensional world invading ours, while Earth armies were
invading the "Fifth Dimension", and 5-D armies were invading Arkon's world!
He even had diagrams explaining the whole mess. CJE's LitCrit Rule of Thumb
#12: Any story that needs a diagram to explain it needs a decent editor far
more.)
> I read that story and I had to ask "What the heck is all the fuss
> about? I can't even understand this comic, let alone enjoy it!"
And rightly so. However, condemning the entire Earth-2 bit on the basis of
that one story is rather premature. Suppose someone's introduction to a Marvel
comic was the Inferno crossover?
> I will still stand by my original statement : that the Marvel Universe is
> one main universe, surrounded by insignificant little ones, and that the old
> DC multiverse was *two* main universes connected to a few more of slightly
> lesser importance and then surrounded by insignificant little ones. They
> *are* different concepts.
No one was arguing that they were different concepts. You had said that DC's
was harder to follow because of the two main universes. I'm arguing that a)
the other "main" universe isn't as important as you're making it sound, and b)
it's no harder to understand them than it is to understand the histories of
*any* two characters. You want to say that bad stories have been written using
Earth-2, I'll agree with you. But I won't agree that *all* Earth-2 stories are
inherently hard to follow.
Steve Simmons
>> Yeah, Marvel's got alternate Earths. But not Infinite Earths.
>> DC, on the other hand, had Earth-1, Earth-2, Earth-S, and, if you want
>> to get picky, even Earth-X and Earth-4, all of which were homes to
>> major important characters and heroes which at some time had their own
>> books. It was very confusing.
> It was far from confusing. Earth-1 was the DC Universe. Earth-2 had
>the Golden age heroes. What's confusing about that? . . .
Hear, hear! "Crisis On Infinite Earths" solved a DC crisis all right,
but it wasn't the problem of having multiple earths. It was the problem
of 50 years of continuity complicating their existing characters. DC
had been either ignoring the continuity (which led to contradiction and
reader frustration) or attempting to adhere to it, effectively hamstringing
them ("remember, we solved that one back in '42"). "Crisis" let DC have
good reason to retcon characters to whatever extent needed -- heck, it
practically demanded it.
There is no reason DC couldn't have done "Crisis" and come out with
multiple Earths in the end -- it would have required doing "Crisis"
differently (duh) but I don't think they even considered it. They
wanted a way to clarify, simplify, and refresh. Say what you will about
how they have and haven't followed thru on it, they at least broke
thru the logjam.
Speaking of same, how many DC books are better now than they were before
"Crisis"? Worse? The same? On the whole, I think they've improved.
Robert Kelly
>
>There are rumblings in the editorial staff about bringing back the Justice
>Society! Mail them at once urging you support!
>
Hi There,
Being the modernist that I am, I'd like to encourage just the
opposite. Every time they do something like this it creates loopholes,
character inconsistancies, and resurecting of old stupid plots.
They're not as bad as soap operas, but they are bad.
More than likely, they'll get Roy Thomas to do it. The only thing
he did (IMHO IHMO MOIH HOIM) good was Elric at first Comics.
BOB<E<K
Robert Kelly
>laba...@WEB.berkeley.edu () writes:
>
>>Morrison says that Crisis will be undone (yay!)!
>
>>Kwei-Cee Chu
>
>Yay? YAY!!! What for the yay? If they are truly going to undo the
>Crisis, as in bring back Earth-2, Earth-S, Earth-X, Earth-465284, ad
>
>Earth-Stupid" plots that drove me nuts trying to keep everything
>straight, well, I may have my Marvel-Zombie-ometer reinstalled.
>
Hear! Hear!
God, just think, they will bring back ULTRA!!
Morrison is going too far on this one. What if Moore did a Watchmen 2?
. . . Uh sorry, but Veidt was really kidding and he didn't teleport
a cloned brain to New York at all.
No Rorshack's not dead either.
What happened to Manhattan (the city not the blue guy)?
Oh, that was all special effects. Dont worry, It'll be all
fixed up.
What about the Comedian?
What ABout the Comedian?
Leave 'im Dead!
BOB<E<K
Bob Calbridge
[whoops, deleted the second lead in]
> > AltEarths in Marvel tend to be "plot-specific", i.e. they are invented
> > for one specific purpose, like Rachel's Earth-Phoenix-Doesn't-Die.
> > They didn't do what DC did : create another Earth specifically for
> > the purpose of explaining Golden Age stories.
>
> Huh? "The reason I prefer Marvel's alternate earths over DC's is that Marvel's
> AltEarths are invented for one specific purpose, but DC's Earths are invented
> for *one specific purpose*." Oh, now I get it. %-P
I think the point was that Marvel developed alternate universes to present new
plot lines. DC developed theirs (initially at any rate) to avoid having to
explain why there had been no interaction or appearances by the Golden Age
characters. In other words, dangling plotlines. At least I think that was the
point being made by the original poster. I'm not sure I agree with that. To
my recollection, the first alternate Earth story of any consequence was "The
Flash of Two Earths." This was a plot device to get the two together. The
rest was something of an extension by afterthought. As was realized later
this was a mistake. Thus, Crisis.
However, IMHO, the whole concept of having the Golden Agers as still having
existed prior to the current crop is still a mistake. Primarily in the
concept of how many of the Johnny_come_latelies have the same name as the
Goldies. True, they explained the connection between the two Green Lanterns
but isn't it strange that Hal doesn't question the connection between the
name of the Green Lantern Corp and the Golden Age hero of the same name.
And don't forget that Gardner Fox was supposed to have dreamed the adventures
of the Golden Age Flash as a sort of mental bond across the dimensions.
All in all, I think they're still painted into a corner.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
= More stupid questions available on request from =
- bobc@attctc Your humble servant (real humble) -
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
James Preston
>And pre-Crisis DC never had a book based in one of *its* alternate universes,
>except for SHAZAM! and ALL-STAR in its various (successive) incarnations:
>revival, SQUADRON, and YOUNG.
First, let me say that I agree 100% with the point you've been making and
think that you're doing an excellent job of "defending" DC's alternate Earths.
However, in the interest of fairness, I must point out that the above is not
quite accurate. You left out _Infinity Inc._ and _The Freedom Fighters_.
Then there was the period of _Wonder Woman_'s World War II adventures, which
were on Earth 2; and even though she never had a book of her own, The Huntress
was a pretty popular pre-crisis character, and she was on Earth 2.
>I didn't have any problem with DC's parallel earths when I first read about
>them, when I was (counts on fingers) about 7 years old, and I didn't have any
>problem with them during CRISIS. The smushed-together *uni*verse that resulted
>from CRISIS I *do* have problems with.
I agree completely. It was a whole lot cleaner, more straightforward, and
easier to understand when different characters with different powers and
origins and histories but the same name lived on different Earths. Trying
to put both Flashes and both Green Lanterns, etc. on one world just seems
like trying to put the old square peg in a round hole. You can do it if
you use a hammer, but you sure make a mess out of the peg and the hole in
the process.
--James Preston
Kenneth W. Crist Jr.
>>except for SHAZAM! and ALL-STAR in its various (successive) incarnations:
>>revival, SQUADRON, and YOUNG.
>
> quite accurate. You left out _Infinity Inc._ and _The Freedom Fighters_.
But, as I said earlier FREEDOM FIGHTERS was based on Earth-1, not Earth-X.
They came to Earth-1 in the first issue and returned to Earth-X sometime
after the book was cancelled, issue 15. They were in the middle of a
cross-over with the SECRET SOCIETY OF SUPER-VILLAINS book. I suppose it was
finished in one of the CANCELLED COMICS CAVALCADE books. Anyone know for
sure?
Cthulhu's Jersey Epopt
writes:
> However, IMHO, the whole concept of having the Golden Agers as still having
> existed prior to the current crop is still a mistake. Primarily in the
> concept of how many of the Johnny_come_latelies have the same name as the
> Goldies. True, they explained the connection between the two Green Lanterns
> but isn't it strange that Hal doesn't question the connection between the
> name of the Green Lantern Corp and the Golden Age hero of the same name.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The only real link between a Silver
Age hero's name and his/her Golden Age/Earth-2 counterpart is in Barry Allen's
Flash. Barry had been a fan of the old FLASH comics and took the name when he
became the fastest man alive. Any other name similarities are just brushed off
as dimensional equivalents. (I know of the "Starheart Connection" between the
two GLs, but I don't recall any reason, other than a "dimensional coincidence",
why they're both called "Green Lantern". I don't see why Hal *should* question
it any more than the two Hawkmen should question how *they* happen to have the
same name.)
> And don't forget that Gardner Fox was supposed to have dreamed the adventures
> of the Golden Age Flash as a sort of mental bond across the dimensions.
Just to clarify things: the Earth-1 Fox experienced the "true" adventures of
the E-2 Flash (and presumably the other E-2 characters he wrote about) in his
dreams and turned those dreams into the published stories. The impression I
get from your statement above is that you're claiming Fox's dreams influenced
E-2 Flash's adventures, rather than the other way around. Apologies if I've
misinterpreted what you said.
Bob Calbridge
` In article <10...@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> bo...@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Bob Calbridge)
` writes:
`
` > However, IMHO, the whole concept of having the Golden Agers as still having
` > existed prior to the current crop is still a mistake. Primarily in the
` > concept of how many of the Johnny_come_latelies have the same name as the
` > Goldies. True, they explained the connection between the two Green Lanterns
` > but isn't it strange that Hal doesn't question the connection between the
` > name of the Green Lantern Corp and the Golden Age hero of the same name.
`
` I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The only real link between a Silver
` Age hero's name and his/her Golden Age/Earth-2 counterpart is in Barry Allen's
` Flash. Barry had been a fan of the old FLASH comics and took the name when he
` became the fastest man alive. Any other name similarities are just brushed off
` as dimensional equivalents. (I know of the "Starheart Connection" between the
` two GLs, but I don't recall any reason, other than a "dimensional coincidence",
` why they're both called "Green Lantern". I don't see why Hal *should* question
` it any more than the two Hawkmen should question how *they* happen to have the
` same name.)
`
` > And don't forget that Gardner Fox was supposed to have dreamed the adventures
` > of the Golden Age Flash as a sort of mental bond across the dimensions.
`
` Just to clarify things: the Earth-1 Fox experienced the "true" adventures of
` the E-2 Flash (and presumably the other E-2 characters he wrote about) in his
` dreams and turned those dreams into the published stories. The impression I
` get from your statement above is that you're claiming Fox's dreams influenced
` E-2 Flash's adventures, rather than the other way around. Apologies if I've
` misinterpreted what you said.
Apology accepted. I didn't think my statement was that vague, but maybe so.
What I'm saying here is that post-Crisis, the All-Star Squadron did exist in
history. There _was_ then a Green Lantern who history would have recorded and
Hal Jordan would almost certainly have been familiar with the name as these
were not ordinary men who fought in WWII or crime. (deep breath) So why no
"Hmmmm. Green Lantern Corp! Wasn't there a hero by that name twenty or
thirty years ago? Was he a member of this corp?" Understand what I'm getting
at?
For that matter, did the retelling of the Barry Allen Flash origin mention
the reason why he took the name? And now, we seem to have two Turtles to
have to contend with. Or at least we did.
In the words of Vinnie Barbarino, "I'm so confuuused!"
B.C. Holmes
>If they are truly going to undo the
>Crisis, as in bring back Earth-2, Earth-S, Earth-X, Earth-465284, ad
>nauseum, then I may just have to curtail my buying of DC comics. The
>Infinite Earths are what made me avoid DC like the plague; I couldn't
>understand the goddamn continuity!
Perhaps Grant Morrison was suggesting that the concept of Infinite Earths was
going to be brought back, but that the main books would only deal with
Earth-DC. Thus, (if they wanted too), they could justify cross-overs with
the Watchmen, Victorian Batman, and the C.O.P.S. continuity at their leisure.
This wouldn't offend my sensibilities terribly, as I kind of enjoy the
occasional "Parallel Universe" story, but I think too much work has gone into
ironing out the continuity quirks of putting the JSA/Freedom Fighters/Marvel
family onto Earth-DC.
BTW: Does anybody have an unresolved DC Continuity problem checklist?
Brian Holmes
Continuity Cop
"Be he ever so humble, there's no police like Holmes."
Nathan Shafer
>Perhaps Grant Morrison was suggesting that the concept of Infinite Earths was
>going to be brought back, but that the main books would only deal with
>Earth-DC. Thus, (if they wanted too), they could justify cross-overs with
>the Watchmen, Victorian Batman, and the C.O.P.S. continuity at their leisure.
One thing I don't understand is the need people have for a continuity to
run through all the comics published by a certain company. This goes for
science fiction stories as well. Look at how Asimov felt compelled to connect
his "Foundation" stories with his "Robot" stories. These are just stories, and
yet people go into a tizzy when someone does something like "Gotham by Gaslight"
or "The Dark Knight" because they can't fit it in with the regular Batman
continuity, so they have to make up all these "alternate universes."
I'm not saying that continuities are a bad thing per se, but there's nothing
wrong with the occasional story that doesn't fit into the regular DC Universe.
Nathan Shafer
Dartmouth College
Cthulhu's Jersey Epopt
Shafer) writes:
> One thing I don't understand is the need people have for a continuity to run
> through all the comics published by a certain company.... These are just
> stories, and yet people go into a tizzy when someone does something like
> "Gotham by Gaslight" or "The Dark Knight" because they can't fit it in with
> the regular Batman continuity, so they have to make up all these "alternate
> universes."
I can't speak for anyone but myself, of course, but I don't see the desire of
we self-appointed Continuity Cops to be a *single* continuity. Rather, we're
looking for consistency in the mainstream continuity, i.e., we want true
continuity.
If many previous stories established, say, Batman's father to be Thomas Wayne,
M.D., I don't want to see a mainstream story that says he was a lawyer named
Carlton. On the other hand, if the only reference to his father were a single
balloon in a story that otherwise had nothing to do with the Wayne family, I
can ignore that for a decent full story about Dr. Wayne.
Similarly, if two characters' comics regularly take place in the same city
(NYC, say), and these characters have met elsewhere, I'd like at least a token
explanation for why only Character X can save the city from certain destruction
(other than "Hey, the title of this book is CHARACTER X!").
The question with DARK KNIGHT was not "*How* does this fit into the main
continuity?" but rather "*Does* this fit into the main?" This is true for any
story taking place in The Future and involving mainstream characters.
> I'm not saying that continuities are a bad thing per se, but there's nothing
> wrong with the occasional story that doesn't fit into the regular DC
> Universe.
I agree. Stories that have nothing to do with mainstream characters, or even
"imaginary stories" ("Aren't they all?") involving those characters, don't
necessarily require their own continuities. However, if you're going to do a
series of them ("Gotham by Gaslight II: the Joker and Teddy Roosevelt!"), you
have to recognize that each story is an episode in the life of the character
and thus establishes a continuity.
If you're going to write continuing stories about a character, that character's
experiences, his/her history or *continuity*, have much to do with shaping the
character. Good writers don't ignore awkward episodes in the history, they
show how they affect the character even today.
Dan'l DanehyOakes
>BTW: Does anybody have an unresolved DC Continuity problem checklist?
I'd be happy to compile one. If people care to send me their gripes, quibbles,
and questions about DC continuity, I'll keep the List and do a periodic posting
(rather like the infamous Marvel Mutant Register) -- including any resolutions
that come to my notice.
I'll start the list myself with this question:
Since there was no Supergirl in the Pocket Universe (only the *very* briefly-
lived Matrix-Supergirl, who was never "Kara"), who did Brainiac 5 fall in love
with (and don't tell me that never happened! Levitz has claimed all along that
Legion continuity didn't change with the crisis. Despite any retconning of the
Great Darkness...)
Everyone is *not* entitled to their opinion.
Everyone is entitled to their *informed* opinion.
--Harlan Ellison
Dan'l
& Dyer
> continuity to run through all the comics published by a certain
> company.
Alan Moore wrote a wonderful preface/forward/intro/whatever to the
_Saga_of_the_Swamp_Thing_ book (run out and buy it). In it he
discussed various practices of comic book companies, including
teamups and crossovers.
Crossovers are basically just business: a book whose sales aren't
doing so well can be expected to have a guest appearance by the
star of a book that is selling well. Moore, making the best of
the situation, thought it could be handled better---something
about rich mythologies waiting it be plucked like fruit from
a vine---and then proceeded to do so.
> Look at how Asimov felt compelled to connect his "Foundation"
> stories with his "Robot" stories.
This is somewhat different, and the difference is that between the
financial investment of a publishing company and the creative
investment of an author.
> people go into a tizzy when someone does something like "Gotham
> by Gaslight" or "The Dark Knight" because they can't fit it in
> with the regular Batman continuity . . .
It really isn't something to get upset about, especially for what
are obviously imaginary stories like "Gotham by Gaslight."
Continuity can put shackles on writers. Why should a modern
writer be constrained by something some mediocre writer did in
some bad story in 1962? On the other hand, well-written events
in the characters' lives should be respected, and "maintaining
continuity" should mean using such events as reference points.
Which makes "The Dark Knight" a different concern from "Gotham by
Gaslight." While both are officially "imaginary stories,"
writers should recognize that "The Dark Knight" is the best
ending yet imagined for the Batman's career, and make an effort
not to bollocks it up.
"Oh yeah? You wanna see something
*really* scary? There . . . the
Joker's stopped laughing." (30)
::::.-----.:::::<_Jym_>:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::/ | \::::.-----.::::::::::::::::: Jym Dyer ::::::::::::::::
::/ | \::/ o o \:::::::::::j...@mica.berkeley.edu :::::::::
::\ /|\ /::\ \___/ /::::::::: Berserkeley, California ::::::::
:::\ / | \ /::::`-----'::::::::::::Dilute! Dilute! O.K.! :::::::::
::::`-----':::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
(I'm back . . . lost access for awhile . . . stuff like that.)
mark schlatter
(& Dyer) writes:
>Continuity can put shackles on writers. Why should a modern
> writer be constrained by something some mediocre writer did in
> some bad story in 1962? On the other hand, well-written events
> in the characters' lives should be respected, and "maintaining
> continuity" should mean using such events as reference points.
Agreed for the most part, but unfortunately most "well-written
events" seem to lose their context when used as reference points by
the average writer. As an example, Jason's death seemed to be written
not so much as to move toward Batman's frame of mind in _Dark Knight_
as to make current continuity (one set of facts) mesh with the plot
outline of DK (another set of facts).
>Which makes "The Dark Knight" a different concern from "Gotham by
> Gaslight." While both are officially "imaginary stories,"
> writers should recognize that "The Dark Knight" is the best
> ending yet imagined for the Batman's career, and make an effort
> not to bollocks it up.
I wouldn't mind seeing _Dark Knight_ as the end all of the
Batman saga - I just don't think the abilities of most writers and the
openended quality of an ongoing series make it possible.
mark schlatter
sch...@math.berkeley.edu
Tim Maroney
In article <JYM.90Ja...@eris.berkeley.edu> j...@eris.berkeley.edu
(& Dyer) writes:
> writers should recognize that "The Dark Knight" is the best
> ending yet imagined for the Batman's career, and make an effort
> not to bollocks it up.
It's already bollixed up; it's not just outside DC continuity because
it's a "future imaginary story": it's incompatible with DC continuity.
As has frequently been pointed out here, it's not set in the future at
all; it's set in the time of its publication, the mid-1980's, with
Ronald Reagan as president and people who were teenagers in the 1960's
having teenaged children. It can't happen in DC continuity because it
didn't happen during the period of its setting; it would have to have
already happened.
Which is fine; continuity is for anal-retentives. As superhero stories
go, it's very good (which isn't saying very much), and it stands on its
own. It will continue to stand on its own despite the fact that it
can't be reconciled with the continuity of the mainstream Batman
serial(s).
--
Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, t...@toad.com
"I was brought up in the other service; but I knew from the first that the
Devil was my natural master and captain and friend. I saw that he was in
the right, and that the world cringed to his conqueror only from fear."
- Shaw, "The Devil's Disciple"
John S. Nunnemacher
> As has frequently been pointed out here, it's not set in the future at
> all; it's set in the time of its publication, the mid-1980's, with
> Ronald Reagan as president and people who were teenagers in the 1960's
> having teenaged children.
Really? I must have missed some discussion on the net or
something. Yeah, I can see the part about people being teenagers
from the sixties having teenagers now; but there seems so much
more that points to at least a few years into the future.
Examples:
a) There's a lot of technology slightly ahead of our time;
and the clothing fashions seem quite a bit different
than the usual is now. (Or else I'm REALLY out of touch.)
b) Wayne's pushing sixty, Gordon's pushing seventy or eighty,
and Alfred's pushing some astronomical age by this time.
Selina and Oliver seem to be getting up there in years.
They don't seem to be that old in the "current" comics.
(Wayne never had grey hair before ...)
c) In a similar vein, Lana Lang is the managing editor of
the _Daily Planet_, and James "Jimmy" Olsen is the president
of some television network. Superman and Batman meshed
(sorry, "crossed-over" :-) quite often; and while it was
never explicitely stated that the ages of the characters
in each coincided, it isn't an off-the-wall assumtion to
make.
d) It is stated that Batman has been inactive for at least ten
years. Jason must have been killed at some time before that;
specifically, _now_, or at least recently, in the continuity.
(Not that I'm a continuity freak, but ... well, more on that
three paragraphs down.)
There may be other examples; that's all I can think of right
now.
As for the existance of Ronald Reagan, I assumed that he had just
hung on as president for a few years longer than normal. Wasn't
there talk of his trying to end the two-term, ten-year limit
imposed on presidents? Besides, he looked older and more feeble
in those pictures than he does now (if that's possible ... :-)
Of course, it COULD be the case that TDKR is in a COMPLETELY
different continuity, where all the characters really are fifteen
or twenty years older than we're used to seeing ... but, unless
Miller had some wonderful reason for doing that, it seems kind of
silly to me. When I read a BATMAN comic book, even if it's not
going to fit perfectly into the "continuity," I'd still like it
to relate in some way to the story I'm used to hearing.
Otherwise, why call it "Batman"? :o}
"Holy batsh*t, Fatman!
I mean ..." -Robin #47
john
--
John Nunnemacher ------------------------------------ nunn...@moravian.edu
Box 435 Moravian College ...!rutgers!liberty!batman!nunnemaJ
Bethlehem,_PA_18018 ___________/ "We are the music makers, and we are \___
*Disclaimer: I'm only human.* \ the dreamers of dreams." -Willy Wonka /
Matthew_E...@cup.portal.com
I've seen similar comments often on this net. I can't believe that
Tim, and others who've expressed similar sentiments, really feel that comics
should be immune from cause and effect. Too often, this criticsm seems to
say "Those who don't suspend their disbelief as easily as I do are
anal-retentives." Just because someone devours with relish something I
find hard to swallow doesn't make either one of us better than the other.
I enjoy good stories with good continuity. Continuity can add depth and
realism, or contribute to a legend, epic, or saga. Continuity concerns can
lead to exciting new stories (see MIRACLEMAN). If you don't want the baggage
of an established character or universe, don't use them. Create a character
or universe of your own (see WATCHMEN).
Matthew Seitz
Matthew_E...@cup.portal.com
James Rankin
All right, Tim, tell me exactly what IS a good story and why, evidently,
super hero stories aren't. Examples, please (of good stories, in any medium).
just curious,
-jimbo
Dan'l DanehyOakes
> Yeah, I can see the part about people being teenagers
> from the sixties having teenagers now; but there seems so much
> more that points to at least a few years into the future.
Sigh. I don't know why I do this to myself. Nonetheless, this seems to
require *some* reply.
The basic theory by which B:TDKR takes place in the 80s is that the Batman
in TDKR is *not* the Batman we read about in current comics, but the one we
read about in comics in (roughly) the 50s and 60s. Sort of a pre-Crisis Earth-
One Batman. What you might call the Silver Age Batman, if you are so silly as
to believe in the Golden Age premise that comics were better in the 40s than
they are now.
The rest follows logically:
> a) There's a lot of technology slightly ahead of our time;
> and the clothing fashions seem quite a bit different
> than the usual is now. (Or else I'm REALLY out of touch.)
I'm not usually given to quoting cartoon cats, but -- big fat hairy deal.
The technology in DC comics is *always* years ahead of reality...
Just consider some of the weird shit Batman always used to be pulling
out of his utility belt...
> b) Wayne's pushing sixty, Gordon's pushing seventy or eighty,
> and Alfred's pushing some astronomical age by this time.
> Selina and Oliver seem to be getting up there in years.
> They don't seem to be that old in the "current" comics.
> (Wayne never had grey hair before ...)
If you figure that Bats was his eternal-29 in the mid-50s, then he'd be
"pushing 60" by the mid-80s. The other characters can be presumed to have
aged along with him...
> c) In a similar vein, Lana Lang is the managing editor of
> the _Daily Planet_, and James "Jimmy" Olsen is the president
> of some television network. Superman and Batman meshed
> (sorry, "crossed-over" :-) quite often; and while it was
> never explicitely stated that the ages of the characters
> in each coincided, it isn't an off-the-wall assumtion to
> make.
Absotively correct; Supes, like Bats, is assumed by DC to be "eternally 29."
The same is true for their supporting casts (though the ages vary, they're
"eternally" whatever age they are.
Howsomever, Miller *drops* that assumption for purposes of TDKR.
What's particularly amusing to me is that Oliver Queen is no longer assumed to
be "eternally-29," but is now in his 40s in his own book...
> d) It is stated that Batman has been inactive for at least ten
> years. Jason must have been killed at some time before that;
> specifically, _now_, or at least recently, in the continuity.
> (Not that I'm a continuity freak, but ... well, more on that
> three paragraphs down.)
The "Jason" business is a bit harder to reconcile, since Jason didn't appear
in the mainstream continuity until the late 70s or early 80s (I don't recall,
since I wasn't reading the Batbooks at the time). I think we'd just have to
assume for purposes of argument that Jason happened, in the DKR universe, in
the mid-to-late 70s.
> As for the existance of Ronald Reagan, I assumed that he had just
> hung on as president for a few years longer than normal. Wasn't
> there talk of his trying to end the two-term, ten-year limit
> imposed on presidents? Besides, he looked older and more feeble
> in those pictures than he does now (if that's possible ... :-)
Yes, there was. There was also such talk about Nixon. The sillier fringe
of the Democratic party starts those rumors regularly; don't be shocked if
you hear them about Bush in about four years.
No, this isn't anti-Democratic propaganda on my part; I'm referring to the
silly fringe of the Democratic party. *EVERY* party has a silly fringe.
> Of course, it COULD be the case that TDKR is in a COMPLETELY
> different continuity, where all the characters really are fifteen
> or twenty years older than we're used to seeing
Exactly.
> ... but, unless
> Miller had some wonderful reason for doing that, it seems kind of
> silly to me.
Yes, he had a reason for doing that. He wanted to tell a story that didn't
bloody well *FIT* into regular continuity. What could be simpler than that?
> Otherwise, why call it "Batman"? :o}
Because Batman has become a cultural icon, a "myth" in the sense the word is
used by Roland Barthes. Miller was manipulating the mythic power of the
Batman character to tell a particular story.
In other words, he was playing on your head, dude.
The "response" of mice to the "stimulus" of being
dropped in molten lead is no doubt highly uniform, and
no doubt we can give sufficient physiological conditions
for this uniformity of reaction, but "burning to a
crisp" does not describe a sort of behavior to which
mice are prone; they are not designed... to behave this
way when so stimulated.
--Daniel C. Dennett
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
Paul Estin CA-at-large
>> As has frequently been pointed out here, it's not set in the future at
>> all; it's set in the time of its publication, the mid-1980's, with
>> Ronald Reagan as president and people who were teenagers in the 1960's
>> having teenaged children.
In article <8...@batman.moravian.EDU> nunn...@batman.moravian.EDU
(John S. Nunnemacher) writes:
> Really? I must have missed some discussion on the net or
> something. Yeah, I can see the part about people being teenagers
> from the sixties having teenagers now; but there seems so much
> more that points to at least a few years into the future.
Re: _The Dark Knight Returns_ and its non-place in continuity.
The original discussion took place about 14 months ago. As one
of those foolish enough to bring the subject up in the first place, let
me now be foolish enough to clarify my original position.
There is often a tacit assumption on the part of both comic
readers and even DC editors, that TDKR is the future of the current
Batman, and that events in the current continuity will lead inexorably
in that direction (eg. Jason is killed). While there is nothing wrong
with having stories written with the TDKR ending in mind, there is no
reason that they actually have to. Furthermore, although they might lead
to a TDKR-sort of ending, they can't lead to TDKR per se, for two
reasons:
(1) TDKR takes place in the 1980s. *Which* 1980s is not clear.
Not *our* 1980s, certainly (unless you've recently seen Superman fly past
your window). It's *a* DC universe, but not the current DC Universe; a
DC Universe in which most of the "heroing" apparently took place in the
1960's and early 1970's. Consider the setting to be "Frank Miller's DC
Universe", because _Batman: Year One_ is the only book you'll find that
might have the same chronology as TDKR (i.e. Bruce Wayne's parents were
killed after seeing "The Mark of Zorro" starring Tyrone Powers, a movie
which came out in the 1940s [forgive any errors, I don't have any
reference material with me at the moment]).
Anyway, as ample references make clear (a Reagan-like president, a
Letterman-like talk show host, a Westheimer-like well-known sex therapist,
parents of a 13-year-old who make references to growing up in the 1960's),
TDKR takes place in the 1980's, *not* in some possible future history of
the current DC Universe.
(2) DC can't keep on having current Batman continuity move towards
TDKR forever, unless they want to cancel all their books except "Superman:
the Pawn of the US Government".
Whoo! OK, I think that restates what Mike Schiffer and I were
pointing out originally, lo these many moons ago.
"Is Dark Knight `real'?" - convention-goer
"No, it's just a story." - Frank Miller
> Of course, it COULD be the case that TDKR is in a COMPLETELY
> different continuity, where all the characters really are fifteen
> or twenty years older than we're used to seeing ... but, unless
> Miller had some wonderful reason for doing that, it seems kind of
> silly to me. When I read a BATMAN comic book, even if it's not
> going to fit perfectly into the "continuity," I'd still like it
> to relate in some way to the story I'm used to hearing.
But it *is* a completely different continuity. That's very clear.
Why did Miller do it that way? Probably because *his* story was about a
Batman who isn't "eternally 29", but who ages. A "realistic" Batman, if
you will. Thus, he had to establish a chronology of Batman's life, and
there just isn't one that fits with either the Silver-Age Earth-1 Batman
(the "current" Batman at the time that Miller wrote TDKR) or the current
DC Batman.
> Otherwise, why call it "Batman"? :o}
Because that's the name of the character?
Seriously, I don't see why there can't be room for "outside of
continuity" stories. Why should a writer be shoehorned into writing a
story that "fits with established continuity"? What's wrong with an
imaginary story, or a what-if story, or just a "story" story? There's
a good side to continuity, but not if *everything* has to fit it.
(Side note to jayembee: As far as I can tell, we feel the same way on
this issue; I can't figure out why we were disagreeing when this
discussion came up the first time.)
One final note: Imagine, if you will, the following:
The setting is ancient Greece. The blind poet Homer is reciting
a marvelous epic story entitled "The Iliad". Partway into it, some
idiot in the front row yells, "Wait a minute! Achilleus is supposed to
be *invulnerable*, except for one ankle! It's part of established
continuity!"
---
Paul A. Estin, also answering to the name "Scooter"
University of Chicago Science Fiction Club
Vice President, Keeper of the Slinky, and Fictional Friend of Wesley
es...@tank.uchicago.edu
5454 S. Shore Dr. Apt 707, Chicago IL 60615
included in the half of the population with a submedian income
Tim Maroney
>> As has frequently been pointed out here, it's not set in the future at
>> all; it's set in the time of its publication, the mid-1980's, with
>> Ronald Reagan as president and people who were teenagers in the 1960's
>> having teenaged children.
In article <8...@batman.moravian.EDU> nunn...@batman.moravian.EDU
(John S. Nunnemacher) writes:
> Really? I must have missed some discussion on the net or
> something. Yeah, I can see the part about people being teenagers
> from the sixties having teenagers now; but there seems so much
> more that points to at least a few years into the future.
Note that the people who were teenagers in the 1960's having children
who are teenagers now is virtually impossible to reconcile with any
time period other than the 1980's.
> a) There's a lot of technology slightly ahead of our time;
> and the clothing fashions seem quite a bit different
> than the usual is now. (Or else I'm REALLY out of touch.)
Yes; it's an alternate world. It has advanced technology because
that's always been a staple of superhero stories; the superhero world
has always had better technology (often ridiculously better) than ours
during the same period. The clothing -- as I said, it's an alternate
world; I hope you noticed that styles were also different in WATCHMEN.
> b) Wayne's pushing sixty, Gordon's pushing seventy or eighty,
> and Alfred's pushing some astronomical age by this time.
> Selina and Oliver seem to be getting up there in years.
> They don't seem to be that old in the "current" comics.
> (Wayne never had grey hair before ...)
That's right, it's not tied to current continuity -- that was my whole
point! The idea is "Batman at fifty". His age in the story is the
same as the age of his character as a character in our world; it
started about fifty years ago. The story in itself is a mirror of
the story as story.
> c) In a similar vein, Lana Lang is the managing editor of
> the _Daily Planet_, and James "Jimmy" Olsen is the president
> of some television network. Superman and Batman meshed
> (sorry, "crossed-over" :-) quite often; and while it was
> never explicitely stated that the ages of the characters
> in each coincided, it isn't an off-the-wall assumtion to
> make.
That's right. Again, you seem to be making the argument that I'm wrong
about the story being incompatible with current DC continuity because
the story is incompatible with current DC continuity. If you accept
the idea that Batman-at-fifty is meant as a comment on the series
itself, and add to that the age of the new Robin and her parents and
the presidency of Ronald Reagan, then the story was obviously meant to
be contemporary with the time of its writing.
> d) It is stated that Batman has been inactive for at least ten
> years. Jason must have been killed at some time before that;
> specifically, _now_, or at least recently, in the continuity.
> (Not that I'm a continuity freak, but ... well, more on that
> three paragraphs down.)
>
> There may be other examples; that's all I can think of right
> now.
Unfortunately, none of them hold water at all.
> As for the existance of Ronald Reagan, I assumed that he had just
> hung on as president for a few years longer than normal. Wasn't
> there talk of his trying to end the two-term, ten-year limit
> imposed on presidents? Besides, he looked older and more feeble
> in those pictures than he does now (if that's possible ... :-)
No, just a carictaure. That's how Miller typically portrays political
figures, in caricature.
> Of course, it COULD be the case that TDKR is in a COMPLETELY
> different continuity, where all the characters really are fifteen
> or twenty years older than we're used to seeing ... but, unless
> Miller had some wonderful reason for doing that, it seems kind of
> silly to me. When I read a BATMAN comic book, even if it's not
> going to fit perfectly into the "continuity," I'd still like it
> to relate in some way to the story I'm used to hearing.
It does, but apparently in a way that is too subtle for you.
--
Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, t...@toad.com
"Now hear a plain fact: Swedenborg has not written one new truth: Now hear
another: he has written all the old falshoods.
And now hear the reason. He conversed with Angels who are all religious, &
conversed not with Devils who all hate religion..."
- Blake, "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell"
Just another theatre geek...
>Note that the people who were teenagers in the 1960's having children
>who are teenagers now is virtually impossible to reconcile with any
>time period other than the 1980's.
If and only if those 1960s teenagers HAD their children back in
the 1960s. If these 1960s types waited a few years to have their children
(or if their birth control broke down at an inopportune time...;}), they
could still be working, still have their counterculture attitude and STILL
have teenaged children even in the early 21st Century. For example, I know
of a counterculture type couple who just had their first kid.....
[Now I know this may not match up with what Tim's general point is
since my Dark Knight copy is hidden in the stacks.....just that this point he
made is not in any way indicative of what time frame the story is in....]
--
Roger Tang, Member
Uncle Bonsai Memorial Fan Club
American Flag Disposal Unit #3245, Chonk Moonhunters chapter
gwan...@blake.acs.washington.edu
Steve Simmons
>Note that the people who were teenagers in the 1960's having children
>who are teenagers now is virtually impossible to reconcile with any
>time period other than the 1980's.
A moderate quibble -- I was a teenager in the '60s, and my son Robert (not
Robin :-) is 5. From October 19, 1997 to October 18, 2004 he'll be a
teenager. Far from moderately impossible, he's got a lot of playmates
with parents my age. But otherwise a reasonable analysis.
The Dread Pirate Roberts
}} ... continuity is for anal-retentives.
} I've seen similar comments often on this net. I can't believe that
} Tim, and others who've expressed similar sentiments, really feel that
} comics should be immune from cause and effect. Too often, this criticsm
} seems to say "Those who don't suspend their disbelief as easily as I
} do are anal-retentives."
[...]
} I enjoy good stories with good continuity. Continuity can add depth and
} realism, or contribute to a legend, epic, or saga. Continuity concerns can
} lead to exciting new stories (see MIRACLEMAN). If you don't want the baggage
} of an established character or universe, don't use them. Create a character
} or universe of your own (see WATCHMEN).
It's not continuity per se that is anal-retentive, but *obsessive* concern
with continuity. Writers should not be held to some element of a story
published N years ago that few, if any, people remember. For instance,
when Mike Barr started BATMAN AND THE OUTSIDERS, he established that Batman
and Metamorpho had never met before. He got shit from that from readers
who pointed out that the two met in an issue of BRAVE & BOLD way back when.
The real point is what difference does it make? Does it make the new story
less worthwhile because it doesn't jibe with one story published 15 years
earlier?
The only time it gets to be annoying is when they keep changing their
minds every six months, as during a period in which DC editors couldn't
decide whether Catwoman knew Batman's identity or not. Not really earth-
shaking, but annoying.
Continuity can be a game that's great fun. It seems obvious to me that
Alan Moore, when writing MIRACLEMAN, saw it as an entertaining challenge
to do radical surgery on the character while maintaining continuity to
the old version. Roy Thomas seems to delight in doing the same thing
with all of his retconning. But, it gets to the point where continuity
gets in the way of some people's enjoyment, and *that* is anal-retentive.
For a perfectly good example of how lack of continuity does *not*
interfere with a series, take a look at the Disney duck comics. In one
story, Donald is completely broke; in the next story, he's buying plane
tickets for himself and his nephews to go around the world on a treasure
hunt. In one story, every other citizen on Duckburg is building a moon
rocket; in the next, technology is more like ours. Does anyone care about
the fact that Hewey, Dewey, and Louie are Donald's nephews, but there
has never been a mention of Donald ever having a brother or sister? Does
anyone care about whether Scrooge's reminiscences about his past all
jobe with each other. No. The Duck stories, with the rare exceptions of
one story being a sequel to an older one, just exist, and can be read
and enjoyed without caring about whether they fit into a single, coherent
whole.
"Somebody got ta nail dat girl's fins to da floor."
--- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, "The Mill", Maynard, MA)
UUCP: ...!decwrl!ruby.enet.dec.com!boyajian
Marty Ward
> whole whack of stuff about when TDK takes place.
Who cares! For me it takes place 'ten years in the future' (of the DC
universe) and ten years from now I'll still consider it 'ten years in the
future'. If someone believes it takes place in the 1980's then that is
your perogative, but don't tell me that what you think is the only
correct and true interpretation.
So, let's end this before it gets 'too big', ie, flame-fest.
-Marty
--
Marty Ward, Acadia University, Wolfville, Nova Scotia, CANADA
E-mail: 860...@AcadiaU.CA
"The living dead don't *need* to solve world problems." -- Calvin
Tim Maroney
>>... continuity is for anal-retentives.
>
> I've seen similar comments often on this net. I can't believe that
>Tim, and others who've expressed similar sentiments, really feel that comics
>should be immune from cause and effect.
Perhaps I spoke loosely. Within a single story, continuity is
important. Between stories, it is very nearly irrelevant. With
respect to comics, you have to look at the difference between a serial
and a series; the FF's latest foray into the Negative Zone is a serial,
which should be internally consistent; the entire run of FF is a
series, which need not be consistent.
>Too often, this criticsm seems to
>say "Those who don't suspend their disbelief as easily as I do are
>anal-retentives."
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
>Just because someone devours with relish something I
>find hard to swallow doesn't make either one of us better than the other.
I see what this is supposed to mean, but I don't see what relevance it
has to this. Continuity is not some separable story element to which
some tastes may run, like for instance fight scenes or sex scenes.
It's something to which people are more or less attentive.
>I enjoy good stories with good continuity. Continuity can add depth and
>realism, or contribute to a legend, epic, or saga. Continuity concerns can
>lead to exciting new stories (see MIRACLEMAN). If you don't want the baggage
>of an established character or universe, don't use them. Create a character
>or universe of your own (see WATCHMEN).
MIRACLEMAN is a close approximation to trash. In any case, I hope you
realize that statements like "can contribute" are so vague as to be
meaningless from a critical perspective.
The fact is that continuity is not a *story* criterion. It's a cultist
criterion, or if you prefer, an escapist criterion. People who read,
not for literary satisfaction, but to escape this world and flee into
another one, are highly disturbed when the illusion of reality of the
other world shatters. This is the case when, for instance, two
disconnected issues of FANTASTIC FOUR are irreconcilable on the layout
of the Baxter Building. But the fact is, this has no bearing on the
quality of either story, only on how hard it is to fool yourself into
thinking that the world of the FF is real.
--
Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, t...@toad.com
"Something was badly amiss with the spiritual life of the planet, thought
Gibreel Farishta. Too many demons inside people claiming to believe in
God." -- Salman Rushdie, THE SATANIC VERSES
John S. Nunnemacher
Thanks for the clarifications on TDKR. As I said, I missed this
original thread of postings.
I only hope no one out there thought I was a (dum dum DUM!)
CONTINUITY FREAK!!! I was just trying to sort some things out.
I also hope I don't start another thread of eight billion
postings (which may have already started; who can say?)
I said it before, and I'll say it again: I just babble.
babble babble babble
Subrata Sircar
>The fact is that continuity is not a *story* criterion. It's a cultist
>criterion, or if you prefer, an escapist criterion. People who read,
>not for literary satisfaction, but to escape this world and flee into
>another one, are highly disturbed when the illusion of reality of the
>other world shatters. This is the case when, for instance, two
>disconnected issues of FANTASTIC FOUR are irreconcilable on the layout
>of the Baxter Building. But the fact is, this has no bearing on the
>quality of either story, only on how hard it is to fool yourself into
>thinking that the world of the FF is real.
I disagree. I should think that a measure of the quality of the story would
have something to do with how easy it is to be drawn into the world picture
that the author is attempting to sell, and how much of the world and characters
gets across to the reader. Certainly continuity of characters is important -
if an author violated a long-standing character trait, the character would seem
less real and less believable. This would interfere with presentation of
theme, plot etc. In many cases, the ability to "fool yourself into thinking
that the world...is real" is critical to presentation of whatever ideas the
author wishes to present. I understand this is not always true for a comic
series, but there are many cases where (IMO) it is true. In short, IMO the
completeness of the world picture is directly related to the quality of the
story.
This does not mean that if a characters favorite food switches from beans to
lima beans a hue and cry should be raised and the responsible person shot. By
the same token deliberately ignoring established character traits without
explanation is slipshod, careless work.
--
Subrata K. Sircar, Prophet & Charter Member of SPAMIT(tm)
sksi...@phoenix.princeton.edu SKSI...@PUCC.BITNET
BUSH SENDS 500 MPs TO STOP VIRGINS LOOTING - New York Daily News
LEBANESE CHIEF LIMITS ACCESS TO PRIVATE PARTS - The Daily Iowan
Cthulhu's Jersey Epopt
> Perhaps I spoke loosely. Within a single story, continuity is important.
> Between stories, it is very nearly irrelevant. With respect to comics, you
> have to look at the difference between a serial and a series; the FF's latest
> foray into the Negative Zone is a serial, which should be internally
> consistent; the entire run of FF is a series, which need not be consistent.
Tim makes some good points about when continuity is useful. As regards, say,
the Sherlock Holmes stories, which were not intended to be a series in the
sense that comics (or TV) uses the word, it's irrelevant whether Dr. Watson's
wound was in the arm or the leg. If it's important in one story that it be
one, and in the other the other, that should be permissible. First and
foremost, the story needs to work as a story, and it remains the author's
prerogative to say "I changed my mind." If it's unimportant (as Watson's wound
was), it's just a part of the author's ability to produce verisimilitude
through background details. A lapse of memory for such details on the author's
part may shock the occasional reader out of the willing suspension of
disbelief, but it doesn't affect the value of the story itself unless, as Tim
pointed out, it occurs within the story.
However, modern comics are presented as a series. We are expected to believe
that the stories take place in a particular order and that each one involves
the same characters as did the previous one. This was presented as an
important point in many stories; for example, how *did* the villain escape from
seeming death? By permitting such stories, the editors have tacitly agreed
that a sense of continuity is important. I think the major point of contention
is how acute that sense should be.
In my mind, I draw the line on how the story affected the character. I don't
recall a Batman story before DARK KNIGHT that claimed the movie Bruce Wayne saw
on the night his parents died was significant, so I don't see Miller's
"changing" the film to be a continuity problem. Presumably, Bruce's decision
to become Batman *was* influenced by his having seen a "Zorro" film that night.
If a later writer were to refer to a pre-Miller story that had that film as a
Marx Brothers comedy (say in making some point in a Joker story)*, I would now
object to the story as being out of continuity. But calling Bruce Wayne's
father "George" instead of "Thomas", or drawing Batman's ears longer in one
issue than in the next, are of little importance to the character of the Batman
and are easily dismissed as typos or artistic license.
* No, there is no such story, as far as I know.
With that in mind...
> The fact is that continuity is not a *story* criterion. It's a cultist
> criterion, or if you prefer, an escapist criterion. People who read, not for
> literary satisfaction, but to escape this world and flee into another one,
> are highly disturbed when the illusion of reality of the other world
> shatters. This is the case when, for instance, two disconnected issues of
> FANTASTIC FOUR are irreconcilable on the layout of the Baxter Building. But
> the fact is, this has no bearing on the quality of either story, only on how
> hard it is to fool yourself into thinking that the world of the FF is real.
Not strictly true. Tim admitted continuity's importance ("internal
consistency") in a serial, which is simply a story told in multiple parts. We
would certainly object if a character inexplicably changed occupations
somewhere in the middle of a story. And fooling oneself into thinking the
world of the characters is real is a recognized component of literary
satisfaction: "verisimilitude", closely tied to the famous "willing suspension
of disbelief".
I take Tim's point about overemphasizing continuity to the detriment of story
or letting a continuity flaw mar the enjoyment of an otherwise perfect story
("Why did the Batmobile have the big Bat-cow-catcher in THE KILLING JOKE?"),
but the question shouldn't be "Is continuity important?" but rather "When is
continuity important?" Continuity is simply internal consistency spread over
multiple stories. Matthew Seitz's opinion
> >I can't believe that Tim, and others who've expressed similar sentiments,
> >really feel that comics should be immune from cause and effect.
is, I feel, a closer (though far more abbreviated) approximation of Ultimate
Reality than is Tim's, but there is value in both opinions.
Dani Zweig
t...@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney):
>Within a single story, continuity is
>important. Between stories, it is very nearly irrelevant. With
>respect to comics, you have to look at the difference between a serial
>and a series; the FF's latest foray into the Negative Zone is a serial,
>which should be internally consistent; the entire run of FF is a
>series, which need not be consistent.
Bingo! We're finally making some solid progress in defining the core
issues here. The operative terms are 'story', 'serial' and 'series'.
Within a single story, even minor inconsistencies which do not affect the
story substantively are *irritating*. They detract from our enjoyment
of the story. Minor inconsistencies across greater stretches are less
important and less irritating. But it is still the case that they can
lessen the enjoyment of someone who has been reading a given title for a
long time as a single ongoing (albeit highly episodic) story, rather than
as a collection of disjoint adventures with some commonalities of
character and background.
If the justification for thinking of the title as an ongoing story is
weak (eg Richie Rich) or if the inconsistencies are suffieciently minor
(eg the name of a minor character being changed twenty years later) there
is some justification is saying that the person being bothered is too
detail-oriented. (There, isn't that a nicer term than anal-retentive? :-)
But it *is* a slippery-slope distinction. People will disagree on the point
at which consistency and continuity become more trouble than they're worth.
>The fact is that continuity is not a *story* criterion. It's a cultist
>criterion, or if you prefer, an escapist criterion. People who read,
>not for literary satisfaction, but to escape this world and flee into
>another one, are highly disturbed when the illusion of reality of the
>other world shatters. This is the case when, for instance, two
>disconnected issues of FANTASTIC FOUR are irreconcilable on the layout
>of the Baxter Building. But the fact is, this has no bearing on the
>quality of either story, only on how hard it is to fool yourself into
>thinking that the world of the FF is real.
I would find such irreconcilability reducing my enjoyment of the story by
some small amount if it happened within a single issue. I probably wouldn't
notice it if it happened in consecutive issues, but I can see where others
might. And it *would* be a 'story criterion'. And it would not be
necessary to accuse them of trying to believe that they are reading reality.
And if the issues in question were separated by several years and the
inconsistency had no other impact on the plot? Think of it as the comic
book community's contribution to keeping these people off the streets where
they would otherwise meet like-minded company and spend their time trying
to memorize Pi to ten thousand decimal places.
Dani Zweig
ha...@andrew.cmu.edu
Chris Faylor
>
>criterion, or if you prefer, an escapist criterion. People who read,
>not for literary satisfaction, but to escape this world and flee into
>another one, are highly disturbed when the illusion of reality of the
>other world shatters. This is the case when, for instance, two
>disconnected issues of FANTASTIC FOUR are irreconcilable on the layout
>of the Baxter Building. But the fact is, this has no bearing on the
>quality of either story, only on how hard it is to fool yourself into
>thinking that the world of the FF is real.
I agree with this. In comics, as in life, it is possible to take continuity
too far. I am not always consistent in my day to day dealings with people.
Since the characters in comics are based on real people they shouldn't be
either.
Having made that point, I have to say that the main continuity-related thing
that bothers me is RADICALLY different attitudes in the characters. If it
has been established that Ben Grimm now LOVES being the Thing and wouldn't
think about being anything else then having him do backflips with joy when he
gets changed back to normal will bother me. In the context of both stories
there is sure to be internal consistency but if I can't get a feeling that I
know the characters, then why bother reading the comic book?
Another place where continuity is important is in permanent changes to
characters... such as death... If some character, like a Captain Marvel,
or somebody is brought back after death with little or no explanation then
the emotional impact of any future problems with the character is lessened.
And finally, the last thing that bothers me about breaches in continuity is
when they clearly represent laziness on the part of the writer or editor.
If neither one can take the time to determine what Dr. Banner's first name
is then that is a reflection on their attitudes toward their creation. I
mean, I read these stupid funny books so I can escape, true, but I would hope
that it is a shared escape between writer and reader. If the author doesn't
care about what he is writing then he is just manipulating me for money.
I guess I like to believe that there is more to this than simple capitalism.
--
Chris Faylor
c...@ednor.bbc.com
The Napoleon of Crime
>It's not continuity per se that is anal-retentive, but *obsessive* concern
>with continuity.
*Bingo* As with almost everything other than Cajun-style Tim's potatoe
chips, everything in moderation.
Oh. I guess I don't have much else to say on the subject.
Uhhh... so what do you think of Caliber's GO-MAN?
Lousy weather we're having, huh?
"IMPIETY: Your irreverence towards my deity."
-- Ambrose Bierce
---
Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer
INTERNET: mori...@tc.fluke.COM
Manual UUCP: {uw-beaver, sun, microsoft, hplsla, uiucuxc}!fluke!moriarty
CREDO: You gotta be Cruel to be Kind...
<*> DISCLAIMER: Do what you want with me, but leave my employers alone! <*>
5 CR
I just read an interesting letter about continuity, so I would like to
give my two cents worth.
When reading a novel, especially a trilogy, I expect continuity. When
I see a well done movie or trilogy I also expect continuity. The author
of one posting suggested that people who expect continuity cannot tell
the difference between reality and fiction and a continuity error upsets
them as if it was real. That person is wrong.
One of the things that continuity means to me is that the author took the
time to develop a good story. Good stories have more going on than that
is said directly verbally. Recall your old English classes when you
discussed the motivations of characters in some works of literature.
Also, you discussed the setting (at least my classes did) and the story
seemed more credible and enjoyable if there was continuity. For example in
the book Great Expectations (which has been made into a Classic Illustrated,
unbelievable to condense a 400+ page book to 40 pages, too much was going
on) I would have felt uncomfortable if in the beginning Miss Havisham's
home was dilapidated and in the middle of the book the grounds were well
taken care of for no apparent reason. reason.
To change continuity because of mistakes in the beginning is one thing but
to change it because it just fits the story better, now, is a mark of
shoddy work to me. And, you cannot make the excuse that it is a natural
result of many different authors and artists working on one series. Other
projects (like television and movies) do this and they are fairly sucessful
in keeping a better sense of continuity (they have book [I do not know what
the trade name for it is] that is a sort of bible on the characters and the
general storyline).
Steven B. Fellows
sfel...@csm9a.colorado.edu
Alex Chaffee
>>> As has frequently been pointed out here, it's not set in the future at
"Pointed out" or "suggested?" Or "flamed...?"
This argument can go 'round and 'round... Was it really Reagan, Was it
really Ruth Westheimer instead of Ruth Weisenheimer, Was it the New or the
Old Superman, and if the latter, was it Earth-1 or Earth-2...
One point I'd like to make is that the whole Jason business was *invented*
by Miller; TDKR came out a few years before the 900-line fiasco. However,
in the words of jayembee, "I don't give a rat's ass if DARK KNIGHT falls
into continuity or out of continuity." And Marty Ward, "So, let's end this
before it gets 'too big', ie, flame-fest."
But wait! Always willing to fan the flames, it's Tim Maroney--!
>nunn...@batman.moravian.EDU (John S. Nunnemacher) writes:
>> When I read a BATMAN comic book, even if it's not
>> going to fit perfectly into the "continuity," I'd still like it
>> to relate in some way to the story I'm used to hearing.
>
> It does, but apparently in a way that is too subtle for you.
I love the net! And this thread's got everything: An innocent suggestion,
much thumping of chests, a few sane voices crying in the wilderness, and
endless, mostly quoted, sophomoric replies! (Heh.)
"Smileys are for the weak."
--
Alex Chaffee
cha...@reed.UUCP
Reed College, Portland OR 97202
____________________
John S. Nunnemacher
> But wait! Always willing to fan the flames, it's Tim Maroney--!
>
> >nunn...@batman.moravian.EDU (John S. Nunnemacher) writes:
> >> When I read a BATMAN comic book, even if it's not
> >> going to fit perfectly into the "continuity," I'd still like it
> >> to relate in some way to the story I'm used to hearing.
> >
> > It does, but apparently in a way that is too subtle for you.
[OW! OW!]
> I love the net! And this thread's got everything: An innocent suggestion,
> much thumping of chests, a few sane voices crying in the wilderness, and
> endless, mostly quoted, sophomoric replies! (Heh.)
Thanx for defending my honor (I think?), especially since I don't
remember reading that particular followup to my original posting.
To make a long story short:
a) Someone told me long ago that TDKR took place in the future,
and I never saw any serious reason to doubt that.
b) I then saw a posting saying it wasn't in the future, but in
an alternate present.
c) I read all the reasoning behind this statement (and thanks to
all those nice people who followed up on my posting!)
and realized what they meant. ("Oh, what a fool I've been.")
d) Apparently, though, some people shun the communication of
ideas and the openness and innocent questioning of
information over the net, and are unable to resist any
opportunity, however unprovoked, of starting a flame
war.
Well, that's about it. Nice to know rhyme and reason still rule
the world.
"Rescue Rhyme and Reason?
Rescue Rhyme and Reason!"
Tom Galloway
>with continuity. Writers should not be held to some element of a story
>published N years ago that few, if any, people remember. For instance,
>when Mike Barr started BATMAN AND THE OUTSIDERS, he established that Batman
>and Metamorpho had never met before. He got shit from that from readers
>who pointed out that the two met in an issue of BRAVE & BOLD way back when.
>The real point is what difference does it make? Does it make the new story
>less worthwhile because it doesn't jibe with one story published 15 years
>earlier?
I can't resist...Jerry, you got the meta-continuity wrong. Barr acknowledged
that Batman and Metamorpho had met before (hardly had any choice; there were
several well-established JLA stories where they'd met), what he ruled
out of continuity was Rex knowing that Batman was Bruce Wayne. Do I get a
no-prize for this? :-)
Seriously, well, somewhat seriously, it is amusing to note that several of
Barr's stories about Metamorpho have been apparently declared out of
continuity by JLE types. In the last few issues of The Outsiders, he and
Sapphire adopted an infant girl who from all appearances in JLE never
existed.
"If I go to sleep they might decide to remove me from the continuity and then
I'll never wake up." --Psycho-Pirate
tyg t...@caen.engin.umich.edu
Bob Mosley III
>
> Seriously, well, somewhat seriously, it is amusing to note that several of
> Barr's stories about Metamorpho have been apparently declared out of
> continuity by JLE types. In the last few issues of The Outsiders, he and
> Sapphire adopted an infant girl who from all appearances in JLE never
> existed.
...actually, this went one step further, Tom. During the Millennium fiasco,
it was established that Rex's DNA was now so screwed that he and Sapphire
could not procreate. That led to Dr. Jace's involvement, and subsequent
attempts to wrest control of Metamorpho for the Manhunter cause. During
this time, Rex began to resume a more "human" form ("dear editor: please
give metamorpho some hair." Nope. Sorry.) due to the work Dr. Jace was
performing.
...the question now, is whether said work was sufficient enough for
Rex and Sapphire's genetic material to become compatible. Of course,
if this is true, then why did Rex Jr. look like a disordered version
of his normal self, and not the Jace-altered version? Seems to me that
since she was making genetic changes, and Sapph HAD to have been
knocked up after the treatment...well, you get the picture.
...then again, this whole story could have been a rather lousy attempt
at subliminally inposing "safe sex" concepts on the readers.:-)
Either way, it was worth it for the last scene, with Stagg remembering
(or at least it's impiled) that "the Stagg line must go on" (from his
outrage at Rex's "sterility" in The Outsiders).
OM
"But Daddy, what about Rex?"
"Please...don't spoil the moment for me."