EVERYONE loves continuity.
Ken from Chicago
debate on it once and for all:
EVERYONE loves continuity.
MYTH: People are willing to sacrifice continuity for a good story.
TRUTH: Everyone loves continuity.
RUB: As in "ah, but here's the 'rub'", here's where the REAL disagreement
exists: The number one reason for disagreements is people using the same
terms with DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS.
THUS: While everyone loves continuity, while no one is willing to sacrifice
continuity for a good story, people define "STORY" differently.
"STORY" defined:
--a tale told in one, two, three or however many issues of a series (e.g.,
"The Dark Phoenix Saga", "The Mutant Massacre", "The Death of Superman",
"Crisis on Infinite Earths", "Secret Wars", etc.)
--the entire history of a given character (e.g., Flash, Hulk, Supreme, etc.)
--the entire history of a given character in a given series (e.g., SUPERMAN,
THE ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN, SUPERBOY, ACTION COMICS, JLA, SPIDER-MAN, THE
AMAZING SPIDER-MAN, THE SENSATIONAL SPIDER-MAN, SPECTACULAR SPIDER-MAN,
X-MEN, THE UNCANNY X-MEN, etc.)
--the entire history of a given character in a given series by a given
writer / editor (e.g., Stan Lee's Fantastic Four, Jerry Siegel & Joe
Shuster's Superman, Mort Weisenger's Superman, Julius Schwartz's Superman,
John Byrne's Superman, Chris Clairmont's X-Men, Frank Miller's Daredevil,
Keith Giffen's Justice League, J. Michael Straczynski's Spider-Man, Paul
Jenkins' Spider-Man, Peter David's Hulk, etc.)
--the entire history of a given character in a given medium (e.g.,
SMALLVILLE, LOIS & CLARK: THE NEW ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN, SUPERMAN: THE
MOVIE, SUPERMAN II, SUPERMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES, THE BATMAN/SUPERMAN
ADVENTURES, SUPERMAN: THE SUNDAY CLASSICS, SPIDER-MAN, THE AMAZING
SPIDER-MAN, SPIDER-MAN AND HIS AMAZING FRIENDS, SPIDER-MAN: THE NEW ANIMATED
SERIES, SPIDER-MAN UNLIMITED, JUSTICE LEAGUE, CHALLENGE OF THE SUPER
FRIENDS, THE SUPER POWERS TEAM: GALACTIC GUARDIANS, UNCANNY X-MEN, X-MEN:
EVOLUTION, STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION/X-MEN: PLANET X, etc.)
--an individual issue, episode, movie, page, panel, paragraph, scene, etc.
--any combination of the above.
In short, arguments of continuity are really arguments over why my
definition of "story" is better than your definition of "story", over what
should be in "The Story" and what should not be in it.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:h7nwc.19600$eH1.8...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
D'OH! I can't believe I omitted one of the most common basis for continuity
complaints (even tho technically it could fall under "medium" definition),
the "universal" definition, namely:
--the entire history of a character in a given universe (e.g., DC's Original
Universe, DC's Vertigo Universe, DC's Elseworlds, DC's Milestone Universe,
Marvel's Universe, Marvel's Ultimate Universe, Marvel's Malibu Universe,
Marvel's Spider-Girl's Universe, Image's Spawn Universe, Top Cow's
Stormwatch / Planetary / The Authority / Monarchy Universe, Top Cow's Rising
Stars / Midnight Nation Universe, Dark Horse's Buffy Universe, Dark Horse's
Star Wars Universe, Alan Moore's America's Best Comics Universes, etc.)
Jay and Diane Rudin
> In short, arguments of continuity are really arguments over why my
> definition of "story" is better than your definition of "story", over what
> should be in "The Story" and what should not be in it.
Actually, it's a good insight, but incomplete. The issue is whether you
care only about the story or also about the history.
I think of it as a two-way street. When you publish Bingo Boy #1, then you
are not asking for loyalty to any history from the reader, so it's perfectly
reasonable not to demand loyalty to established history from the publisher.
But if they publish Action #813, and want us to show decades-long loyalty
and buy it because we fell in love with the characters and are following the
histories that date for decades, then we should also expect them to write
what we care about.
That's why I have no beef with a reboot -- it's an honest start, and not an
attempt to get me to buy a comic that pretends to be the history I always
followed.
But a story out of continuity is a cheat. Why should I show long-term
loyalty to DC history if DC doesn't? [Note: Me showing long-term loyalty to
DC history is semantically equivalent to continuing to buy a book to follow
the history. This is totally separate from choosing to buy a book based on
on this month's story or art or writer.]
Jay Rudin
W. Blaine Dowler
> MYTH: People are willing to sacrifice continuity for a good story.
Some are.
> TRUTH: Everyone loves continuity.
I've met a guy who likes it when continuity breaks because he gets more
pleasure from freaking out fans than from the actual story.
My personal opinion? I prefer continuity any time it can be managed. I
don't expect Peter Parker to flash back to his days on the Ed Sullivan show
while JMS is writing him, but that's a necessary evil given the different
rates time flows in our universe and the Marvel one. Even then, I suspect
JMS would simply avoid situations where Peter would need to deal with
specifics in that point in his life. A comment that mentions a short show
biz career would be nice, but not necessary. Trying to ignore specific
details related to it, thus not contradicting any of that stuff, would be
the best solution.
I should throw in a caveat that says I haven't read any of JMS' stuff there
yet. (Note the very important "yet.") I named him because he's the
current writer, and because his other work that I'm familiar with shows the
utmost respect for the source material, whether it's his creation or one
someone else trusted him with.
--
- Blaine
http://www.bureau42.com
ICQ: 24893016
"It was mentioned on CNN that the new prime number discovered recently
is four times bigger than the previous record."
- John Blasik.
Steven L Cox
<kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>It's an old argument, and I'm tired of hearing it, so I'm forced to end all
>debate on it once and for all
Oh, get over yourself.
-s-
Ken from Chicago
"Steven L Cox" <steve...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sga4c0pc9vqs278jp...@4ax.com...
Obviously my ego is too big for all outdoors much less for me to get over
it.
-- Ken from ChicEgo
Tue Sorensen
Yes, I am in total agreement. To continuity fans, a breach of
continuity is a sloppily perpetrated gap in the ongoing story.
- Tue
Ken from Chicago
"Tue Sorensen" <twoc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c50450f6.0406...@posting.google.com...
And the key word there in addition to "story" is "ongoing". Many do not see
an *ongoing* story. They see separate stories, and as long as continuity is
maintained within each "story", they are happy--because everyone loves
continuity.
Meanwhile conflicts between stories are overlooked.
-- Ken from Chicago
Johanna Draper Carlson
> But if they publish Action #813, and want us to show decades-long loyalty
> and buy it because we fell in love with the characters and are following the
> histories that date for decades, then we should also expect them to write
> what we care about.
But that's not what they want or are pushing. The most recent Superman
books have been advertised as having hot writers and artists bringing
their visions of the characters. If one infers anything from that, it's
that history is not significant.
--
Johanna Draper Carlson
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
Blogging at http://www.comicsworthreading.com/blog/cwr.html
Ken from Chicago
"Johanna Draper Carlson" <johann...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote in
message news:johannaNOSPAM-326...@individual.net...
"Great jumping on point" also means great jumping off point.
-- Ken from Chicago
Scott Eiler
thread, but it's all just terminology. The underlying debate will
(obviously) continue.
Ken from Chicago wrote:
> "Steven L Cox" <steve...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:sga4c0pc9vqs278jp...@4ax.com...
>
>>On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 17:09:33 GMT, "Ken from Chicago"
>><kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>>>It's an old argument, and I'm tired of hearing it, so I'm forced to end
>>>all debate on it once and for all
and to start a new debate on "How Should Comic Books Tell Stories So As
To Maintain And Increase Readership?" No, wait, that sounds like the
same old debate...
>>Oh, get over yourself.
Gee, Steve, I guess I shouldn't put you on the Domination Of Eiler
mailing list. B{C>
> Obviously my ego is too big for all outdoors much less for me to get over
> it.
Eek! It would seem that Ego The Living Planet left a piece behind from
the last time he infested the Earth! I could tell you when, but that
would be Continuity, or maybe Story. B{D>
--
-------- Scott Eiler B{D> -------- http://www.eilertech.com/ --------
"It seemed an unlikely spot for a sensitive songwriter from Greenwich
Village... She ordered the 20-ounce steak."
-- Lin Brehmer, Chicago DJ, describing his meeting in a steakhouse
with Suzanne Vega.
Christopher Tumber
<A bunch of stuff>
So it all depends what the definition of "is" is?
I dunno, it really seems like you're trying to argue some sort of
moral relativism or pomo lit crit theory - There's no such thing as a
"good story", there's no such thing as a "bad story" either. There's
just our perceptions of story. Pat is correct and I am correct. And
we're also both wrong.
No, I'm sorry, I disagree. I go back to my previous post. There's
serial fiction. There's non-serial fiction. And there's some stuff in
between.
For the last 25 years or so, at least, DC and Marvel have been
publishing serial fiction which brings with it a set of conventions
and expectations on the part of the reader. These conventions and
expectations have been developed and promoted *by the publishers
themselves*.
Now, apparently DC and Marvel want to pull back in an attempt to court
new readers.
That's fine, it's their business they can do what they want. My points
are simply that A) There are repercussions and B) It won't work nearly
as well (if at all) as actually publishing comics mainstream readers
would want to buy.
Chris...
The Black Guardian
>> But if they publish Action #813, and want us to show decades-long loyalty
>> and buy it because we fell in love with the characters and are following
>> the histories that date for decades, then we should also expect them to
write
>> what we care about.
>
> But that's not what they want or are pushing. The most recent Superman
> books have been advertised as having hot writers and artists bringing
> their visions of the characters. If one infers anything from that, it's
> that history is not significant.
If history is not significant, then EVERYONE needs to cease and desist with
all the complaints about characters returning from the dead, etc. I really find
it odd that many of the people who want the dead to stay dead are also the
ones who maintain that continuity is unimportant.
And no, I don't mean to send this discussion off on a tangent about
resurrections, but the fact of the matter is that one of the most often lodged
continuity-related complaints is dead characters returning.
Ken from Chicago was right. What it all boils down to is disagreements over
what parts of the story people want to remain intact.
--
-=[ The BlakGard ]=-
"Somewhere there's danger;
somewhere there's injustice,
and somewhere else the tea is getting cold!"
Glenn Simpson
Are they overlooked, or is the reader just unaware that a conflict
exists?
I'd say most readers are happier when continuity is maintained between
the current story and the history they are familiar with. It's just
that different people have different amounts of details they are
familiar with.
Ken from Chicago
"Glenn Simpson" <glenns...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f674a38c.04060...@posting.google.com...
Right, they have different "stories" that they know of. Some know Superman
is from another planet, his birth name was Kal'el, he landed in Smallville,
Kansas, his adoptive parents were the Kents, who gave him the name "Clark
Kent", he grew up and moved to Metropolis and became a mild mannered
reporter for the Daily Planet, working for the editor Perry White, working
with cub / photo reporter Jimmy Olsen and competiting and falling in love
with fellow reporter Lois Lane, while Clark had a secret identity and super
powers which he used to help people.
Some remember varying levels of degrees of the above story. Some remember
him not having full-blown super powers or a secret identity until he arrived
in Metropolis; while others vaguely remember the adventures of Superman as a
boy, best friends with Pete Ross and having a crush on Lana Lang, as well as
having a super-powered dog, and an entire city from Krypton shrunken small
enough to fit inside a bottle, with cousin, a girl, named "Kara" who was
also super-powered. Some remember a whole menagerie of super-powered
animals--with matching red "S" capes.
And some remember a kryptonite coming in a whole rainbow of colors, as well
as a slightly imperfect, some might even say "bizarre" clone of Superman, as
well as a magical imp with a difficult to pronounce name from another
dimension that bedevilled Superman.
To the degree people were aware of the comic book stories, the more they
would tend ot make of divergences from THEIR history of, the "story" of
Superman.
Then again the same goes for Batman, Bruce Wayne, Robin, Dick Grayson,
Alfred Pennyworth, Jason Todd, Tim Drayke, Commisioner Gordon, the bat
signal. The same goes for Spider-Man, Peter Parker, Aunt May, the Daily
Bugle, J. Jonah Jameson. The same goes for the Hulk, Dr. Robert Bruce David
Banner, Rick Jones, Betty Ross, General Ross and some pesky reporter.
Then again, the more people were aware of the comic book stories, at a
certain point, they remember the comics had conflicting stories, and didn't
always match, to which they'd simply dismiss it as being "only comics"--just
like people might dismiss problem in movies as being "only a movie" or in a
show as "only a tv show, I should really just relax".
What they expect of a story determines the level of details they demand from
it. If they are looking only for an interesting read or movie or tv show for
a few minutes or hours then they are less likely to link the various issues,
films or episodes together to form an overarcing story.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. The irony of the comic book biz is that it often publishes multi-part
stories that readers have to wait weeks or months to finish, thus creating
or attracting the type of person to be the most demanding of
interconnectivity between stories. These are the kind of people most likely
to remember and be most critical of discrepancies since they are not only
able to whole multiple parts of a story in their heads for months at a time
(how long was "Titan's Hunt"?), they LIKE doing so.
P.P.S. Which is yet another reason why I think the comics biz should switch
to TPB or HC only. New readers/buyers would get a "complete" story (if not
several) in one book, and would be less resistant of buying them sense there
would be less fear of jumping into the middle of a story or having to wait
months to get the end of it. But that's another story.
Ken from Chicago
"Christopher Tumber" <christop...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:40c274ba....@nntp.slnt.phub.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>
> <A bunch of stuff>
>
> So it all depends what the definition of "is" is?
>
>
> I dunno, it really seems like you're trying to argue some sort of
> moral relativism or pomo lit crit theory - There's no such thing as a
> "good story", there's no such thing as a "bad story" either. There's
> just our perceptions of story. Pat is correct and I am correct. And
> we're also both wrong.
Well, that's simple. You're wrong.
It depends on what the definition of "story" is.
Your definition of a "story" may differ from someone else's. There are some
people who's definition is limited to a single issue, single page or even a
single panel aka, they are really looking at comics as posterbooks for the
kewl pics and less worried about the words. Others take a more comprehensive
view, attempting to weave a grand tapestry of all the tales of a character,
say Spider-Man, from all mediums, from the comics, to the various animated
shows to the live-action Nicholas Hammond show to even PBS' THE ELECTRIC
COMPANY's tales of Spider-Man, into one overarcing story.
As long as your definition of "story" differs from others than all arguments
about "continuity" being maintained with said story is DESTINED TO FAILURE.
> No, I'm sorry, I disagree. I go back to my previous post. There's
> serial fiction. There's non-serial fiction. And there's some stuff in
> between.
>
> For the last 25 years or so, at least, DC and Marvel have been
> publishing serial fiction which brings with it a set of conventions
> and expectations on the part of the reader. These conventions and
> expectations have been developed and promoted *by the publishers
> themselves*.
WHICH publishers? Julius Schwartz? Jim Quesada? Stan Lee? The comics of the
30s and 40s, differed from the 50s and 60s, which differed from 70s and 80s,
to say nothing of 90s and the current crop. Not only were the comics
different, but the marketing, the sensibilities and expectation of comics
were and are different.
The comic book publishing industry does not live in a vacuum. Times,
conventions and expectations change. There was a time when the Big Three tv
networks had 90 percent of the market, now they have 50 percent of the
American market--if that much. There is far more competition for
entertainment as there is far more sources of entertainment available to
people.
> Now, apparently DC and Marvel want to pull back in an attempt to court
> new readers.
>
> That's fine, it's their business they can do what they want. My points
> are simply that A) There are repercussions and B) It won't work nearly
> as well (if at all) as actually publishing comics mainstream readers
> would want to buy.
>
>
> Chris...
With increased competition for ones time, the less likely newer generations
of potential readers are willing to devote to a 22-page book, know that 1)
there's tons of backstory they have missed, 2) they have to wait another few
weeks to get the rest of the story, or the next chapter, 3) they have to
hope their store even stocks the issue or they can return to the comic book
store to get it, and 4) they remember enough to care about the rest of the
story, or care enough to remember that there is the rest of the story.
I agree with you about DC and Marvel. The irony is that DC and Marvel have
either created or gathered their own worst critics: people with the memories
and attention to detail to hold a multi-part story in their heads for weeks,
months or years at a time (how long was "Titan's Hunt"?). These are the very
people bound to be more critical of when there are discrepancies in ... "The
Story".
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Personally, I think the "solution" to the comics biz is switching over
to TPBs or HCs only. Drop the serial aspects, including the numbering, like
the much of the rest of the publishing industry does even with book series.
Tell "complete" stories in one book. How many new readers are gonna put up
with something like ULTIMATE FANTASTIC FOUR taking six months to retell the
FF origin? That for the most part only works on us already indoctrinated
comic book readers, we who are already hooked. Of course you'd have to bump
up the level of advertising enough to lower the price to say $1 so that they
become an impulse buy (cuz $2-5 is not an impulse price for most people,
especially teens) that could be stocked at the front of grocery stores with
other magazines.
Brian Henderson
<kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>And the key word there in addition to "story" is "ongoing". Many do not see
>an *ongoing* story. They see separate stories, and as long as continuity is
>maintained within each "story", they are happy--because everyone loves
>continuity.
If you don't want it to be an ongoing story, don't number the books
sequentially. If you want to tell a new story, start "New Story of
Spider-Man #1" and tell it. But if you're going to be putting out
"Spider-Man #300", you're obviously telling the ongoing story of
Spider-Man that you have been for the last 299 issues.
Darkk
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:h7nwc.19600$eH1.8...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
> "STORY" defined:
Au contraire, you did leave out the most important definition of a story,
which is quite often the must ingredient for a "good" story.
And that is "an idea", "a concept", "a thought". "a chain of events"(which
need not be . "A Point", if you please. It need not be deeply philosophical.
Could be even something funny, if used judiciously..
A story could be a mystery like Sherlock Holmes stories. A story could be a
tragedy. A story could be about emotions.
Or for example a concept like hubris. JLA : Superpower was a fine example of
how a story can be weaved around such a concept. The said character Mark
Antaeus ( had no history in the medium as it was its first(and I think last)
appearence. It was not about the character's history but about the concept
of hubris. The character's failure to realise his limitation. To understand
that use of power, no matter how great, cannot solve every problem in the
world. The point was illustrated in the scene where he returns to a country
he has "liberated" by killing its dictator, and finds thousands of mass
graves and corpses(thanks to his escalating an already-dangegrous situation
into a total anarchy thanks to his destablizing the country). The same point
is made when he tells Superman (after killing the dictator) "I *had* to do
it. He had a gun. Somebody might have been killed.", to which Superman
replies "Somebody *was* killed". In the atrocities caused by the dictator
pale before what Antaus causes through his arrogant actions. Before you
scream "foul" or read too much into it, the story was written well in 1990s.
Any similarity to any real events is plain ... "irony". And to add further
to that irony, this month's Superman #205 takes up the same issue again.
Superman tries to stop people from killing each other, by using his powers
to take away all their weapons and by threatening them to stop. They stop
for a few seconds and then continue the killing using stones and bricks.
Another well-made point.
If that is too vague or such philosophical ideas are not for you, take the
plain simple concept of "heroism". Isn't that what "superhero" books are
supposed to be half about apart from having cool superpowers part ? "Hero" ?
So what makes the character be a hero ? How is he a hero ? *Why* is he a
hero ? And to do this, the story need not summarise character's past 20
years of history. Take Action #755 again as an example. I don't recall
Superman's past issues being referred anywhere. Nor his 20 years of past
history! All we need to know about the character is contained in just that
one issue. Period. It is simply a story between "Superman" and "the elite".
And shows why Superman is a hero. How is he different from 2000 other
superheroes. Ironically, the answer is not his tremendous powers, but how he
uses them... or *not* uses them. And if you don't see how the difference
between this and a whole issue of crap about a "composite superman/batman
ship" built by some japanese 13 year old kid) ... I just feel sorry for you.
Period.
A story could be about a chain of events or an examination of morality. "The
watchemen" series for example.
"The Dark Knight returns" was a hit because that was all about heroism. A
character that just doesn't quits. No matter what odds. Or who he is
fighting.
And after repeatedly seeing how a "good story" can also be a financial
success in form of above, DC nevertheless continues to hand us "Pokemon"
stories!
BooM! KA-KA-THOOM! POW! "My powers are better than yours! I will use power X
to counteract your power Y! I will sic you with my Giant spider robot!"
What we get is inane drivel about how character X was in highschool not in
city Y but in city Z, 10 years ago. Or how it happened not this, but *that*
way 20 years ago, even though it doesn't matters in the least to the current
scheme of things. Or to show nice "first" meetings once again between a set
of characters for the umpteenth time. "Characters meet, fight, make up,
fight the real villain".
Pokemon sells for sure. But it is targetted for a different audience. And DC
with its women stuffed in fridges and shot in spine, is clearly not
targetting that audience.
The drivel stuff is probably still a story but the point is that we the
readers, are the consumers for DC's products. And the dollars we splurge
every month, we do have a right to expect our money's worth... to get at
least to a reasonable degree, what we expect in return of our 2 dollars
worth. "A good story". And all the complaints you are hearing are because we
are *not* getting our money's worth. Ofcourse if DC doesn't heeds to its
customer's complaints they will eventually move onto other and better stuff
in the market. But in the meanwhile, there will be a large number of
complaints in hope that Dc improves its offerings. And hey, this is a public
forum to discuss DC's comics and this is where the complaints will come in
too.
And if you cannot handle that, maybe you should get out of the Kitchen where
it is too hot for you.
Sheesh!
Darkk
> Right, they have different "stories" that they know of.
>
>
> To the degree people were aware of the comic book stories, the more they
> would tend ot make of divergences from THEIR history of, the "story" of
> Superman.
Actually no. This is not about how the character should fit into personal
version of history.
It is more about *DC*'s saying that the character has a certain history X
and then contradicting themselves and saying the said history was actually
version Y.
I'll demonstrate by simply turning around your arguement. We all know that
batman used to kill earlier. But DC says that the "current" iteration of
batman is not that one and he has never killed. That is acceptable. But if
DC contradicts itself by saying that this is the same first version of the
batman, but has never killed anyways, then it certainly is a problem.
Because if he has never killed, he cannot be the same first version of the
Batman(which indeed killed).
If DC says that events X where team Y was involved, never happened, and team
Y has made his first debacle, fine. That is totally upto DC. But if they
continue referring to event X in other comics (say of Character Z), then
that is contradicting themselves. And that is where the reader finally
starts complaining.
Here is a simple example. "Batman is an urban legend". Same for Robin and
all. Fine. But he was shown to be addressing a very large gathering of
Superheroes during "the invasion" event. So all of them know he exists. He
has also been involved in a number of stories where he makes a very public
appearence. But now he is an urban legend. Fine, if that is the only way a
story can get told. But the reader is now confused. The key plot point in
"the invsaion" had robin appearing in public. So did "the invasion" never
happen now ? But why do other comics still refer to it now and then ? And
will the batman books never refer to the event ever either than ?
And you can't just write it off as "it is just comics". You wouldn't accept
such incredulous, sloppy story telling in a movie definitely.
> Then again, the more people were aware of the comic book stories, at a
> certain point, they remember the comics had conflicting stories, and
didn't
> always match, to which they'd simply dismiss it as being "only
comics"--just
> like people might dismiss problem in movies as being "only a movie" or in
a
> show as "only a tv show, I should really just relax".
>
Not really. People see in scenes where said character is wearing clothes X
and then in next same scene he is in clothes Y.
Or if he has multiple scars on his face in a scene and then in next shot in
the same scene the scar is magically gone.
So unless this was about some reality-warping science-fiction stuff, there
is usually a complaint about sloppy direction(if it happens a lot).
Oh and the dismissal does happen after a bit of cribbing.
Tue Sorensen
Which is as good a way as any to say that those who object to larger
consistency between all published stories, do so out of ignorance and
a lack of overview of the history of the larger, ongoing story. Which,
IMO, strips them of the right to comment meaningfully on the whole,
since they haven't bothered to make themselves aware of it, and know
they won't be seeking out the stories they missed. Thus, in denouncing
continuity, they are willfully helping to tear down a larger,
meaningful narrative structure, deliberately contributing to the
destruction of larger scale continuity. Such people should not be
reading shared universe stories, nor should the publishers of shared
universe stories cater to such people.
- Tue
Johanna Draper Carlson
> "The Dark Knight returns" was a hit because that was all about heroism.
I think the author might disagree with you.
Regardless, a great story is rarely "all about" just one thing.
> BooM! KA-KA-THOOM! POW! "My powers are better than yours! I will use power X
> to counteract your power Y! I will sic you with my Giant spider robot!"
That's what one group of fans wants. Otherwise, we'd never see who'od
win threads.
> The drivel stuff is probably still a story but the point is that we the
> readers, are the consumers for DC's products. And the dollars we splurge
> every month, we do have a right to expect our money's worth...
A significant group of fans will keep buying no matter whether they like
the material or not. THAT behavior has to be fixed before DC or Marvel
will truly start listening.
The Babaloughesian
IOW, they define "story" differently from you and thus have more realistic
expectations of continuity as it relates to them.
> Which, IMO,
> strips them of the right to comment meaningfully on the whole,
> since they haven't bothered to make themselves aware of it, and know
> they won't be seeking out the stories they missed. Thus, in denouncing
> continuity, they are willfully helping to tear down a larger,
> meaningful narrative structure, deliberately contributing to the
> destruction of larger scale continuity.
Perhaps. If so, here's hoping it works.
> Such people should not be
> reading shared universe stories, nor should the publishers of shared
> universe stories cater to such people.
Since such people don't care about the "whole", though, they won't be liable
to mind when the publishers disregard it. So the publishers should take the
path of least resistance and cater to them. Furthermore, since a good deal
of those who value the "whole" generally seem to also be completists who
will keep buying comics even if they don't actually like what's in them,
publishers don't have much incentive to cater to them, since they'll be
getting their money either way.
--
If you can't discuss a work of fiction without insulting another poster, you
deserve to die.
Pudde Fjord
>
> Personally, I think the "solution" to the comics biz is switching over
> to TPBs or HCs only. Drop the serial aspects, including the numbering, like
> the much of the rest of the publishing industry does even with book series.
> Tell "complete" stories in one book. How many new readers are gonna put up
> with something like ULTIMATE FANTASTIC FOUR taking six months to retell the
> FF origin? That for the most part only works on us already indoctrinated
> comic book readers, we who are already hooked. Of course you'd have to bump
> up the level of advertising enough to lower the price to say $1 so that they
> become an impulse buy (cuz $2-5 is not an impulse price for most people,
> especially teens) that could be stocked at the front of grocery stores with
> other magazines.
>
>
The continuity problem won't go away with TP's, because people will be
expecting them to be internally consistent still, and if anything it
will be a little harder for new readers to pick one up casually because
of the price tag. And there has to be a sequence to the stories,
otherwise they won't ring true.
If the companies still pump out the Super-drivel in TP's, it dosn't
address the quality or other issues, and the stuff they put into them
seems to be a little random these days. (A recent Marvel TP contains
stories several hundred of issues apart, marketed as one storyline)
One of the best part of the TP's are that they contain no or very little
ads, so that the story won't be interrupted all the time. And the
distribution (the biggest hurdle for american comics these days) are
much better than the "floppies". ;-)
My biggest turn-off are issues that comes with the disclaimer:
"Everything you thought you knew about [something] is false!"
and is my biggest concern with the current Superman titles (including
"Brithright") for instance.
--
Work like a lion. | Stand like the tree.
Play like a kitten. | Bend like the willow.
Rest like a cat. | Sleep like a log.
..Remove spam..........m..ô¿ô..m.......to mail me..
Ken from Chicago
Except some people don't care to read or buy crossover stories. I know I
don't since I've been burnt too often by crappy and inconsistant writing.
Try and follow every single book Spider-Man has been in. That way lies
madness--and poverty.
Plus people who don't follow every single twist tend to outnumber those who
do--and guess which a publisher is going to opt for?
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"The Babaloughesian" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2ihc80F...@uni-berlin.de...
Explaining why Spider-Man, Batman or Wolverine kept popping up in various
books.
> --
> If you can't discuss a work of fiction without insulting another poster,
you
> deserve to die.
Only idiots resort to ad hominem personal attacks.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Brian Henderson" <BrianL.H...@NOSPAM.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:i5f6c0h621lguk5no...@4ax.com...
They should all be TPBs--or at the very least mini-series ala Dark Horse
during the 80s and early 90s.
-- Ken from Chicago
badthingus
>
> Here is a simple example. "Batman is an urban legend". Same for Robin and
> all. Fine. But he was shown to be addressing a very large gathering of
> Superheroes during "the invasion" event. So all of them know he exists. He
> has also been involved in a number of stories where he makes a very public
> appearence. But now he is an urban legend. Fine, if that is the only way a
> story can get told. But the reader is now confused. The key plot point in
> "the invsaion" had robin appearing in public. So did "the invasion" never
> happen now ? But why do other comics still refer to it now and then ? And
> will the batman books never refer to the event ever either than ?
>
> And you can't just write it off as "it is just comics". You wouldn't accept
> such incredulous, sloppy story telling in a movie definitely.
>
This is just the result of an incredibly stupid Denny O'Neil edict,
who just up and decided one day that "Batman was an urban myth." And
it's actually the best proof of just how stupid, annoying and
disrepectful to fans it is when people just up and decided to
disregard continuity, because that action essentially said the great
Steve Englehart/Marshall Rogers stories didn't exist, not to mention
many of those from Denny O'Neil and Neal Adams. It's someone
"deciding" that continuity "interferes" with with his ability to tell
a story. Not one story from that whole "urban myth" era can compare
to the best stories where Batman is obviously a public presence and
it's flat out what made me stop buying Batman. And with the exception
of the Jim Lee run, I've never looked back. It's just too much to
ignore. I simply cannot enjoy the stories with that HUGE piece of
idiocy hanging over it.
Ken from Chicago
"Pudde Fjord" <puddesp...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:40c3854d$1...@news.broadpark.no...
Ken from Chicago wrote:
..Remove spam..........m..ôżô..m.......to mail me..
Ah, but that's why I said the ads had to be boosted to lower the price to a
buck. Yeah, ad pages are annoying, but getting tpb for $1 is worth flipping
over some ads.
As far as consistancy, odds are the casual readers won't care as much about
discrepanices between BATMAN: NO MAN'S LAND and JLA: ROCK OF AGES.
TPBs can come out sequentially like Star Trek, Babylon 5, Star Wars, etc,,
novels. However some stories can be set at different times, so even tho a
book comes out after another, it could be set in an earlier time frame, ala
STAR TREK: ENTERPRISE novels vs STAR TREK or STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION
novels or the STAR WARS: Episode novels vs STAR WARS: Expanded Universe
novels.
-- Ken from Chicago
Tue Sorensen
> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> news:h7nwc.19600$eH1.8...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
> > "STORY" defined:
>
> Au contraire, you did leave out the most important definition of a story,
> which is quite often the must ingredient for a "good" story.
>
> And that is "an idea", "a concept", "a thought". "a chain of events"(which
> need not be . "A Point", if you please. It need not be deeply philosophical.
> Could be even something funny, if used judiciously..
>
> A story could be a mystery like Sherlock Holmes stories. A story could be a
> tragedy. A story could be about emotions.
Nitpicking.
> Or for example a concept like hubris. JLA : Superpower was a fine example of
> how a story can be weaved around such a concept. The said character Mark
> Antaeus ( had no history in the medium as it was its first(and I think last)
> appearence. It was not about the character's history but about the concept
> of hubris. The character's failure to realise his limitation. To understand
> that use of power, no matter how great, cannot solve every problem in the
> world. The point was illustrated in the scene where he returns to a country
> he has "liberated" by killing its dictator, and finds thousands of mass
> graves and corpses(thanks to his escalating an already-dangegrous situation
> into a total anarchy thanks to his destablizing the country). The same point
> is made when he tells Superman (after killing the dictator) "I *had* to do
> it. He had a gun. Somebody might have been killed.", to which Superman
> replies "Somebody *was* killed". In the atrocities caused by the dictator
> pale before what Antaus causes through his arrogant actions. Before you
> scream "foul" or read too much into it, the story was written well in 1990s.
> Any similarity to any real events is plain ... "irony".
I enjoyed JLA Superpower, but ultimately it makes a point I disagree
with: don't try to solve the real problems of the world. This is a
point, IMO anyway, that contradicts what superhero comics are about on
the symbolical plane. That story said that superheroes should not be
about the real world; they should "just be comic books". This is a
fundamental (but these days increasingly common) misunderstanding of
superhero comics, which on the allegorical level are all about
changing the world; fighting the good fight.
> And to add further
> to that irony, this month's Superman #205 takes up the same issue again.
> Superman tries to stop people from killing each other, by using his powers
> to take away all their weapons and by threatening them to stop. They stop
> for a few seconds and then continue the killing using stones and bricks.
> Another well-made point.
Making the point that "Guns don't kill people; people kill people"?
Conservative rubbish. The truth is that people *plus* guns kill
people. The easier you make it for people to kill, the more some of
them will do it. Having lots and lots of guns around all the time, as
in U.S. society, lots and lots of people will get killed. It is
infinitely harder to use stones, sticks or bare hands.
> If that is too vague or such philosophical ideas are not for you, take the
> plain simple concept of "heroism". Isn't that what "superhero" books are
> supposed to be half about apart from having cool superpowers part ? "Hero" ?
> So what makes the character be a hero ? How is he a hero ? *Why* is he a
> hero ? And to do this, the story need not summarise character's past 20
> years of history. Take Action #755 again as an example.
775, you mean.
> I don't recall
> Superman's past issues being referred anywhere. Nor his 20 years of past
> history! All we need to know about the character is contained in just that
> one issue. Period. It is simply a story between "Superman" and "the elite".
> And shows why Superman is a hero. How is he different from 2000 other
> superheroes. Ironically, the answer is not his tremendous powers, but how he
> uses them... or *not* uses them.
Yes, superheroes are about heroism. That's a given. With the existence
of the superhero comics industry, we have the luxury of being able to
take that for granted. Some (use to be most) of just like the bonus of
a consistent continuity.
> And if you don't see how the difference
> between this and a whole issue of crap about a "composite superman/batman
> ship" built by some japanese 13 year old kid) ... I just feel sorry for you.
> Period.
When you put it that way, so do I! :-)
> "The Dark Knight returns" was a hit because that was all about heroism. A
> character that just doesn't quits. No matter what odds. Or who he is
> fighting.
If anyone could spot the heroism through those thick layers of grit...
> And after repeatedly seeing how a "good story" can also be a financial
> success in form of above, DC nevertheless continues to hand us "Pokemon"
> stories!
> BooM! KA-KA-THOOM! POW! "My powers are better than yours! I will use power X
> to counteract your power Y! I will sic you with my Giant spider robot!"
Sounds like you've left behind childish things. My condolences.
- Tue
Ken from Chicago
Ironically, the American short attention span is fixing that as they are
attracted by the bright shiny objects such as video games, computers and the
internet.
-- Ken from Chicago
Brian Henderson
<kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>They should all be TPBs--or at the very least mini-series ala Dark Horse
>during the 80s and early 90s.
If they were, I'd stop reading them. I do not, nor will I ever buy
TPBs.
Clell Harmon
Why?
Michael Pastor
> "The Babaloughesian" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:2ihc80F...@uni-berlin.de...
>> If you can't discuss a work of fiction without insulting another
>> poster, you deserve to die.
>
> Only idiots resort to ad hominem personal attacks.
>
> -- Ken from Chicago
Ken, I think you missed the irony in the .sig file.
Mike Ward
news:9cd53a3a.04060...@posting.google.com:
> "Darkk" <darke...@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:<2ih1ejF...@uni-berlin.de>...
>
>>
>> Here is a simple example. "Batman is an urban legend". Same for Robin
>> and all. Fine. But he was shown to be addressing a very large
>> gathering of Superheroes during "the invasion" event. So all of them
>> know he exists. He has also been involved in a number of stories
>> where he makes a very public appearence. But now he is an urban
>> legend. Fine, if that is the only way a story can get told. But the
>> reader is now confused. The key plot point in "the invsaion" had
>> robin appearing in public. So did "the invasion" never happen now ?
>> But why do other comics still refer to it now and then ? And will the
>> batman books never refer to the event ever either than ?
>>
>> And you can't just write it off as "it is just comics". You wouldn't
>> accept such incredulous, sloppy story telling in a movie definitely.
>>
> This is just the result of an incredibly stupid Denny O'Neil edict,
> who just up and decided one day that "Batman was an urban myth."
I noticed something the other day which I'd missed before. O'neil actually
tried the Batman is an urban legend thing back when he first started
writing Batman stories. In the story introducing the League of Assains, I
tink it's Tec 405, Batman meets a person who's surprised to find he's not a
legend. And there's a similar encounter in another story about the same
time. I think it's the follow up to 405 that introduces Dr. Darkk (Tec 406
maybe).
Anyway it doesn't really have any baring on the topic at hand I just
thought it was interesting.
Mike
The Black Guardian
>>> And the key word there in addition to "story" is "ongoing". Many do not
>>> see an *ongoing* story. They see separate stories, and as long as
>>> continuity is maintained within each "story", they are happy--because
>>> everyone loves continuity.
>>
>> If you don't want it to be an ongoing story, don't number the books
>> sequentially. If you want to tell a new story, start "New Story of
>> Spider-Man #1" and tell it. But if you're going to be putting out
>> "Spider-Man #300", you're obviously telling the ongoing story of
>> Spider-Man that you have been for the last 299 issues.
>
> They should all be TPBs--or at the very least mini-series ala Dark Horse
> during the 80s and early 90s.
They should... if they want to lose people completely.
The Black Guardian
>> They should all be TPBs--or at the very least mini-series ala Dark Horse
>> during the 80s and early 90s.
>
> If they were, I'd stop reading them. I do not, nor will I ever buy
> TPBs.
On this we agree.
Bennet
>
> Plus people who don't follow every single twist tend to outnumber those who
> do--and guess which a publisher is going to opt for?
Both?
As ever,
Bennet
Ken from Chicago
"Michael Pastor" <michael...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2ihojpF...@uni-berlin.de...
Did I?
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Or did you miss the sarcasm in my reply?
Ken from Chicago
"Bennet" <BHM...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:22ec63f1.04060...@posting.google.com...
True, but if it becomes a choice, they will side for the larger market.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
Why?
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Clell Harmon" <clell_...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:adNwc.23998$Tn6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
GMTA.
What's the beef against TPBs? Especially if there were sufficient ads to
lower the price to a dollar?
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"The Black Guardian" <blak...@aol.coma.org> wrote in message
news:20040606210332...@mb-m14.aol.com...
What do you all have against TPBs?
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
Yeah, cuz there is no manga market.
Or other periodic publishing of Star Trek novels, Star Wars novels, or Wheel
of Time novels or Harry Potter novels.
Sorry, if the comics PUBLISHING industry is to survive, it's gonna have to
stop isolating itself from the rest of the publishing industry.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Note countless numbers of books are published for kids without a clamor
for a "Code" to regulate them.
Glenn Simpson
> news:VeAwc.19955$eH1.9...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
> > Right, they have different "stories" that they know of.
> <snip>
> >
> >
> > To the degree people were aware of the comic book stories, the more they
> > would tend ot make of divergences from THEIR history of, the "story" of
> > Superman.
>
> Actually no. This is not about how the character should fit into personal
> version of history.
> It is more about *DC*'s saying that the character has a certain history X
> and then contradicting themselves and saying the said history was actually
> version Y.
>
> I'll demonstrate by simply turning around your arguement. We all know that
> batman used to kill earlier. But DC says that the "current" iteration of
> batman is not that one and he has never killed. That is acceptable. But if
> DC contradicts itself by saying that this is the same first version of the
> batman, but has never killed anyways, then it certainly is a problem.
> Because if he has never killed, he cannot be the same first version of the
> Batman(which indeed killed).
My point is, it really doesn't matter what DC does, per se. It doesn't
matter if story B contradicts story A, if nobody remembers the details
of story A. That's why the line on what is important or unimportant
in a character's history changes from person to person.
Somewhere out there there's a person who started reading Nightwing
somewhere around the time his series started. They never read the
Perez/Wolfman Titans. So when Nightwing is reviewing all of the women
in his life and they don't mention Starfire - that reader doesn't
notice, and therefore this isn't a continuity problem - for that
person.
So at the end of the day, the duty of the writers and editors is to
make sure they are consistant with the details that the readership
remembers and considers important - not every single detail or story.
The Black Guardian
>>>> They should all be TPBs--or at the very least mini-series ala Dark
>>>> Horse during the 80s and early 90s.
>>>
>>> If they were, I'd stop reading them. I do not, nor will I ever buy
>>> TPBs.
>>
>> On this we agree.
>
Mostly, I dislike how they've affected the telling of stories, forcing the
stories to be several issues in length and forcing the stories to stand alone.
This leads to either stories that are drawn-out to fit or compressed to fit.
Now, if you're just talking about a format change, then that's fine.
Personally, I'd prefer a magazine format like Heavy Metal.
darkk
> with: don't try to solve the real problems of the world. This is a
> point, IMO anyway, that contradicts what superhero comics are about on
> the symbolical plane. That story said that superheroes should not be
> about the real world; they should "just be comic books". This is a
> fundamental (but these days increasingly common) misunderstanding of
> superhero comics, which on the allegorical level are all about
> changing the world; fighting the good fight.
Nothing to do with the continuity discussion, but apathy wasn't the point
being made.
The point of the story instead was, that use of *force* (alone) is not
always the solution to all the problems.
Brute force can usually only mess up things further.
You seriously cannot think of no other ways to solve problems, apart from
use of force or nuking people ?
> Making the point that "Guns don't kill people; people kill people"?
> Conservative rubbish. The truth is that people *plus* guns kill
> people. The easier you make it for people to kill, the more some of
> them will do it. Having lots and lots of guns around all the time, as
> in U.S. society, lots and lots of people will get killed. It is
> infinitely harder to use stones, sticks or bare hands.
*sigh*
NO! Point was that taking away weapons from a group of people by force, will
achieve nothing. Admittedly they will kill less people, but so long as the
feeling of hatred remains, they *will* find just a new weapon. Some *other*
way to kill. So alternative solutions have to be looked at.
It is not about gun-control either. I am all for it personally. But the fact
remains, that *just* taking away guns (or WMDs) doesn't really solves the
problem.(As recent news about a certain war is demonstrarting continuously).
You have to address the root of the problem instead.
Btw, while you can kill faster with guns and modern weapons, it is not so
hard to use stones, knives and sticks. They are still used very efficiently
in almost all riots. People used to hunt using those for thousand of years.
Take knives for example. Can you really ban them or anything with a sharp
edge, for millions of peoples ? Have you any idea how many people have been
killed till date, in history using just your co-called "primitive" weapons ?
Guns are comparatively a recent invention.
And that was what the whole scene conveyed. superman wants to stp people
killing each other. He takes away their weapons, sort of threatens them.
They do get scared for a minute and then a kid throws a stone. Superman
can't obviously threaten or fight with a kid, for all his powers, and that
demonstrates the limitation of his powers. That he cannot solve every
problem of the world using force. Now you can go onto interpret the scene as
that all kids should be sent to ajuvenile homes so that they cannot
participate in riots, or you can conclude that maybe Superman needs to
*talk* to these people instead and find out what their problem is with each
other and use all his powers to help them with a acceptable solution. Or you
can go onto also conclude that since Superman finds the idea of people
killing other people somewhere in the world distasteful, he should go and
nuke and kill both sides.
Oh well, it is all just interpretation of a story. I cannot shove mine
forecfully down your throat ofcourse. And author's interpretation is ofcorse
the authoritarian one. So I digress. :-)
>
> 775, you mean.
Sorry.
> > And after repeatedly seeing how a "good story" can also be a financial
> > success in form of above, DC nevertheless continues to hand us "Pokemon"
> > stories!
> > BooM! KA-KA-THOOM! POW! "My powers are better than yours! I will use
power X
> > to counteract your power Y! I will sic you with my Giant spider robot!"
>
> Sounds like you've left behind childish things. My condolences.
Not at all. I do enjoy something like Darkseid versus Superman, provided it
is not *all* you are being handed nearly all the time.
And like I said, DC is clearly not writing these books for small kids.
(Women stuffed in fridges, insinuations of rape, yada yada).
Michael Pastor
Touche.
Tue Sorensen
> > I enjoyed JLA Superpower, but ultimately it makes a point I disagree
> > with: don't try to solve the real problems of the world. This is a
> > point, IMO anyway, that contradicts what superhero comics are about on
> > the symbolical plane. That story said that superheroes should not be
> > about the real world; they should "just be comic books". This is a
> > fundamental (but these days increasingly common) misunderstanding of
> > superhero comics, which on the allegorical level are all about
> > changing the world; fighting the good fight.
>
> Nothing to do with the continuity discussion, but apathy wasn't the point
> being made.
>
> The point of the story instead was, that use of *force* (alone) is not
> always the solution to all the problems.
> Brute force can usually only mess up things further.
But that just means that the writer thought superheroes were only
about force and violence. It is, in many ways, the very violence in
superhero comics that symbolize their struggle to make a better world.
Someone I know (who doesn't read superhero comics) once commented that
superheroes solve problems in the worst possible way: through
violence. I just think that's a *total* misunderstanding of what
superhero stories are about.
> > Making the point that "Guns don't kill people; people kill people"?
> > Conservative rubbish. The truth is that people *plus* guns kill
> > people. The easier you make it for people to kill, the more some of
> > them will do it. Having lots and lots of guns around all the time, as
> > in U.S. society, lots and lots of people will get killed. It is
> > infinitely harder to use stones, sticks or bare hands.
>
> *sigh*
>
> NO! Point was that taking away weapons from a group of people by force, will
> achieve nothing. Admittedly they will kill less people, but so long as the
> feeling of hatred remains, they *will* find just a new weapon. Some *other*
> way to kill. So alternative solutions have to be looked at.
I think that's primarily *your* interpretation. I still think it's
basically a "Guns don't kill people; people kill people" point.
> It is not about gun-control either. I am all for it personally. But the fact
> remains, that *just* taking away guns (or WMDs) doesn't really solves the
> problem.(As recent news about a certain war is demonstrarting continuously).
> You have to address the root of the problem instead.
Of course, I completely agree on that. But presenting these things in
superhero comics is different from what it would be like in reality.
Someone who portrays superheroes as a reactionary instead of a
progressive force have not understood superheroes, in my opinion. The
very presence of a *superhero* - a superhumanly heroic, moral element
- changes the real-world situation to something very different, and
the situation should be chronicled with that superhumanly heroic,
moral element integrated into the tale. Thus making a proactive point
about how to make the world a better place, instead of just calling
attention to some commonly discussed problematic issue.
Unfortunately, many writers tend to take superheroes for granted,
forgetting the heroic, moral element (or being incapable of working
usefully with it).
> Btw, while you can kill faster with guns and modern weapons, it is not so
> hard to use stones, knives and sticks. They are still used very efficiently
> in almost all riots. People used to hunt using those for thousand of years.
> Take knives for example. Can you really ban them or anything with a sharp
> edge, for millions of peoples ? Have you any idea how many people have been
> killed till date, in history using just your co-called "primitive" weapons ?
> Guns are comparatively a recent invention.
But due to the population explosion, half of everybody who's ever
lived are alive today. So in absolute numbers, I'm sure more people
have been killed by modern weapons. The two or three million north
Vietnamese killed in U.S. bombardments during the Vietnam War, for
instance, weigh heavily on the scales.
> or you can conclude that maybe Superman needs to
> *talk* to these people instead and find out what their problem is with each
> other and use all his powers to help them with a acceptable solution.
Yeah, so why doesn't he? Wouldn't make exciting comics, would it? I
call it bad writing when writers can only present an issue but not
take a progressive stand about how it should be resolved.
- Tue
Tue Sorensen
> > glenns...@yahoo.com (Glenn Simpson) wrote in message
> news:<f674a38c.04060...@posting.google.com>...
> > > the current story and the history they are familiar with. It's just
> > > that different people have different amounts of details they are
> > > familiar with.
> >
> > Which is as good a way as any to say that those who object to larger
> > consistency between all published stories, do so out of ignorance and
> > a lack of overview of the history of the larger, ongoing story. Which,
> > IMO, strips them of the right to comment meaningfully on the whole,
> > since they haven't bothered to make themselves aware of it, and know
> > they won't be seeking out the stories they missed. Thus, in denouncing
> > continuity, they are willfully helping to tear down a larger,
> > meaningful narrative structure, deliberately contributing to the
> > destruction of larger scale continuity. Such people should not be
> > reading shared universe stories, nor should the publishers of shared
> > universe stories cater to such people.
> >
> don't since I've been burnt too often by crappy and inconsistant writing.
> Try and follow every single book Spider-Man has been in. That way lies
> madness--and poverty.
In the case of Spider-Man, yes. But that's an extreme case, where the
most fanatic fans kept buying/collecting the Spidey books way beyond
the point when the stories had gotten crappy. I didn't make that
mistake myself! :-)
> Plus people who don't follow every single twist tend to outnumber those who
> do--and guess which a publisher is going to opt for?
Well, that doesn't really explain the proliferation of big cross-over
events - but maybe you're referring to the current audience as opposed
to the audience of the late '80s? And as for the current audience,
there hasn't really been a big cross-over event recently enough to say
if a majority of the audience would buy it...
- Tue
Ken from Chicago
It's okay. It wouldn't be the first time I told a joke so badly, especially
online, that people missed the humorous intent.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
The thing that sealed the deal for me against cross-overs was, ironically,
an x-over: X-CUTIONER'S SONG (I still said it should have been X-ECUTIONER'S
SONG, but I'm some schmoe from Chicago). A 20-part crossover in which
nothing is accomplished, only to be followed up by ANOTHER 20-part x-over,
PHALANX COVENANT. No, no, a thousand times no. I was out.
Bad enough X-FACTOR characters Peter David was writing weren't always
depicted the same, but I wasn't getting suckered in again. I dropped all of
the x-books, except X-FACTOR (did I mention Peter David was writing it?) and
decided from then all to ignore crossovers. If I wasn't buying a series
before a cross-over, then I wasn't going to start because of a crossover.
Good series would account for events in the crossover, bad ones wouldn't,
and if it were a bad crossover, the series I was reading first would simply
ignore it.
Thus reinforcing a lesson I learned the hard way from the early 90s about
comics: LESS IS MORE. Reading less of comics by being more selective
resulted in more enjoyment. (It would be a lesson I would have to relearn
about movies by the late 90s, but you know, sometimes ya gotta take 2 by 4
to donkey to get his attention.)
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. "Don't toy with Illinois"--Eric & Kathy Show, WTMX.
Ken from Chicago
This debate demonstrates why THE AUTHORITY, written by Warren Ellis, is so
popular, because it's a series about superheroes who shucked mere
crimefighting or supervillain fighting, but saw the problems of the world
and said [bleep] this, we're taking them on: supervillains, egomaniacal
powermongers, 3rd world dictators, poverty and illness in the "2nd" and
"1st" world, ultimately taking over the world.
Oh, and The Authority uses lethal jaw-shattering eyeball-popping force
without, ahem, blinking an eye. And they drink, use drugs and smoke. It's
definitely not a "kiddie" book--but it is about superheroes, or at least
people, adults, with superpowers.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
TPBs don't have to be a set length. I would argue they should be at least
long enough to tell a complete "story" or several of them. Plus it would put
a stop to late issues (how long ago did GLOBAL FREQUENCY # 11 come out and #
12 is just coming out this week? and its been years since RISING STARS # 21
was released and I'm still waiting for the final 3 issues).
-- Ken from Chicago
Janus
> Oh, and The Authority uses lethal jaw-shattering eyeball-popping force
> without, ahem, blinking an eye. And they drink, use drugs and smoke. It's
> definitely not a "kiddie" book--but it is about superheroes, or at least
> people, adults, with superpowers.
>
Astro City is about superheroes, Authority is, as you said, adults with
powers. I'd say it was the irreverent presentation, as you described, that
made it popular. Just look at the cookie-cutter version that predated
Ellis' Authority: Greunwald's Squadron Supreme and their Utopia Project.
--
Phil Jimenez:
"Here's the coolest thing about my job: there are people literally
all over the world who are willing to spend their money, their hard-earned
money, who probably make less than I do, on these comic books and read the
stories I'm choosing to tell them. They continue to invest in them every
month. That, to me, is huge. That they're allowing me to entertain them."
Matches Malone
> Which is as good a way as any to say that those who object to larger
> consistency between all published stories, do so out of ignorance and
> a lack of overview of the history of the larger, ongoing story. Which,
> IMO, strips them of the right to comment meaningfully on the whole,
> since they haven't bothered to make themselves aware of it, and know
> they won't be seeking out the stories they missed. Thus, in denouncing
> continuity, they are willfully helping to tear down a larger,
> meaningful narrative structure, deliberately contributing to the
> destruction of larger scale continuity. Such people should not be
> reading shared universe stories, nor should the publishers of shared
> universe stories cater to such people.
Wow; generalize much? I've been reading comics for about 30 years,
and I have at least a decent eye for detail. But I do not care
whether this "DCU" construct makes any sense. That has nothing to do
with "ignorance". If you really, genuinely believe that the DCU is a
"meaningful narrative structure", more power to you, but it's a
mistake to assume that anyone who points out that the whole idea
behind said "narrative structure" is flawed must do so out of
ignorance.
- Matches
Darkk
> > > or you can conclude that maybe Superman needs to
> > > *talk* to these people instead and find out what their problem is with
> each
> > > other and use all his powers to help them with a acceptable solution.
> >
> > Yeah, so why doesn't he? Wouldn't make exciting comics, would it? I
> > call it bad writing when writers can only present an issue but not
> > take a progressive stand about how it should be resolved.
> >
> > - Tue
>
> This debate demonstrates why THE AUTHORITY, written by Warren Ellis, is so
> popular, because it's a series about superheroes who shucked mere
> crimefighting or supervillain fighting, but saw the problems of the world
> and said [bleep] this, we're taking them on: supervillains, egomaniacal
> powermongers, 3rd world dictators, poverty and illness in the "2nd" and
> "1st" world, ultimately taking over the world.
>
> Oh, and The Authority uses lethal jaw-shattering eyeball-popping force
> without, ahem, blinking an eye. And they drink, use drugs and smoke. It's
> definitely not a "kiddie" book--but it is about superheroes, or at least
> people, adults, with superpowers.
>
Excellent example Ken. :-)
The Authority series mixed the best of both worlds, putting POW-KOW fights
alongside with a more realistic view at world and people.
Whoever said, superheroes comics shouldn't have *any* fighting ? It is
merely that pointless wham-bam and cool *scenes* every issue, gets boring
after a while, unless you throw other ingredients to appease your more
serious/intellectual readership too.
And maintaining a good mix like that, is what people like Waid and Byrne
should be worried about instead of writing entire story arcs about whether
or not Person X knows Person Y now.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 20:52:31 GMT, "Ken from Chicago"
>
> >during the 80s and early 90s.
>
> If they were, I'd stop reading them. I do not, nor will I ever buy
> TPBs.
By TPB, do you mean "a collection of reprinted issues"? Because you
can't mean "a longer comic with a stronger binding" -- deciding whether
or not to buy a story based only on its length just seems silly.
--
Johanna Draper Carlson
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
Blogging at http://www.comicsworthreading.com/blog/cwr.html
David
> "Darkk" <darke...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> > The drivel stuff is probably still a story but the point is that we the
> > readers, are the consumers for DC's products. And the dollars we splurge
> > every month, we do have a right to expect our money's worth...
>
> A significant group of fans will keep buying no matter whether they like
> the material or not. THAT behavior has to be fixed before DC or Marvel
> will truly start listening.
Sad but true, and I'm finding myself depressingly guilty of it. I
mean, I wouldn't know how bad a writer Chuck Austen is if I didn't
keep buying titles in spite of his authorship. I've no clear idea why
I didn't boot DETECTIVE from my pull list when Rucka left (as he was
the only reason I added it to the pull list in the first place). When
I think about it, there's a lot of mediocrity (or worse) in my
reserves out of nostalgia or general laziness, rather than using that
money to try other books I might actually enjoy.
It's weird. It isn't as though I'd buy a new model of a car I didn't
like just because they once made one I did. And it isn't like comics
are a quarter any more. That does it. I'm culling the herd and
trying manga digests. (Provided they don't have hypersexualized
schoolgirls or giant robots.)
Tue Sorensen
> "Tue Sorensen" <twoc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c50450f6.04060...@posting.google.com...
> who
> > > do--and guess which a publisher is going to opt for?
> >
> > Well, that doesn't really explain the proliferation of big cross-over
> > events - but maybe you're referring to the current audience as opposed
> > to the audience of the late '80s? And as for the current audience,
> > there hasn't really been a big cross-over event recently enough to say
> > if a majority of the audience would buy it...
> >
> > - Tue
>
> The thing that sealed the deal for me against cross-overs was, ironically,
> an x-over: X-CUTIONER'S SONG (I still said it should have been X-ECUTIONER'S
> SONG, but I'm some schmoe from Chicago). A 20-part crossover in which
> nothing is accomplished, only to be followed up by ANOTHER 20-part x-over,
> PHALANX COVENANT. No, no, a thousand times no. I was out.
I have to agree that those particular two cross-overs were
exceptionally bad, admittedly. Both of them also disappointed me
greatly. Crappy, insubstantial stories.
- Tue
Tue Sorensen
If it's not because you're ignorant about continuity, it's because you
don't care about it. Either way, you are not the proper audience for
the shared universe type of stories. You would be just as happy with a
fragmented universe.
- Tue
Johanna Draper Carlson
> And as for the current audience, there hasn't really been a big
> cross-over event recently enough to say if a majority of the audience
> would buy it...
War of the Worlds? Batman: No Man's Land? Depends on your definition of
"big" and "recent", I guess.
Tue Sorensen
[lengthy debate snipped to make this post easier to read]
>
> This debate demonstrates why THE AUTHORITY, written by Warren Ellis, is so
> popular, because it's a series about superheroes who shucked mere
> crimefighting or supervillain fighting, but saw the problems of the world
> and said [bleep] this, we're taking them on: supervillains, egomaniacal
> powermongers, 3rd world dictators, poverty and illness in the "2nd" and
> "1st" world, ultimately taking over the world.
>
> Oh, and The Authority uses lethal jaw-shattering eyeball-popping force
> without, ahem, blinking an eye. And they drink, use drugs and smoke. It's
> definitely not a "kiddie" book--but it is about superheroes, or at least
> people, adults, with superpowers.
Unfortunately, as far as I'm concerned, that type of stories is
usually badly crafted and have no shred of originality. From Squadron
Supreme to Watchmen to The Authority and beyond, they *all* end up
taking over the world. However good intentions they start out with,
they *always* end up being corrupted (which is, with great glee, also
shown in their vulgar choice of words and vices). As I always say,
it's the anti-thesis to "with great power comes great responsibility".
These stories say the reverse, that power corrupts, all the way. These
stories take all heroism and human goodness out of the equation, which
makes them utterly unconstructive and pretty damn near worthless. Most
of these stories are done in order to try to make superheroes
"realistic", and only demonstrate how poorly those writers understand
superheroes. Warren Ellis is particularly hateful towards them, and
evidently considers them a reactionary force which is part of the
establishment rather than a force for progressive good. When he writes
about something *else* than superheroes, Ellis can actually understand
the world's need for heroism, as demonstrated in Globel Frequency. He,
and many of his fellow Brits, see *everything* in terms of power and
how power (*always!*) corrupts. This, to my mind, is a so much smaller
perspective than Stan Lee's "power = responsibility" model, which is
inspiring and encouraging and makes the goodness of human nature worth
believing in and fighting for. It is one of the greatest modern
tragedies of our medium that the Brits have undermined and
deconstructed the admirable, progressive, proactive dimension achieved
by good classic superhero comics.
- Tue
Johanna Draper Carlson
> The continuity problem won't go away with TP's, because people will be
> expecting them to be internally consistent still, and if anything it
> will be a little harder for new readers to pick one up casually because
> of the price tag. And there has to be a sequence to the stories,
> otherwise they won't ring true.
No, there's doesn't. Superman: Secret Identity rings truer to me than
any other Superman story in the last five years, and it doesn't relate
to any other Superman book. There doesn't have to be a story sequence
between collections, although there might be.
Glenn Simpson
> Johanna Draper Carlson <johann...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote in message news:<johannaNOSPAM-9D1...@individual.net>...
> > "Darkk" <darke...@gmx.net> wrote:
> >
> > > The drivel stuff is probably still a story but the point is that we the
> > > readers, are the consumers for DC's products. And the dollars we splurge
> > > every month, we do have a right to expect our money's worth...
> >
> > A significant group of fans will keep buying no matter whether they like
> > the material or not. THAT behavior has to be fixed before DC or Marvel
> > will truly start listening.
>
> Sad but true, and I'm finding myself depressingly guilty of it. >
I'm guilty too, although I defend it this way: if I had a friend who
was a lot of fun at one time, but started to be a drag, do I quit
being his friend and go find someone else to hang with, or do I give
him some time to work it out?
Of course, to be really effective I need to tell him what he's doing
that sucks.
Michael Pastor
And I think we can reach an easy consensus that just because you CAN
crossover, you always should, especially with a cosmic event every year.
Crossoveritis is the other extreme in a shared-seriel-continuity universe.
I'm sure just as many contuinity-minded people bristle at Useless X-over
Event #6 as non-continuity people do for different reasons. Sometimes, a
well executed event can strengthen the universe (While not an especially
strong story, I really think Legends did that actually)
Sloppy execution of an idea should never be used as a grounds against the
idea itself.
michael j pastor
The Babaloughesian
"Glenn Simpson" <glenns...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f674a38c.04060...@posting.google.com...
Are you saying you don't want to hurt your comic books' feelings?
Ken from Chicago
> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote in
message news:<6zYwc.20759$eH1.9...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>...
> [lengthy debate snipped to make this post easier to read]
> >
> > This debate demonstrates why THE AUTHORITY, written by Warren Ellis, is
so
> > popular, because it's a series about superheroes who shucked mere
> > crimefighting or supervillain fighting, but saw the problems of the
world
> > and said [bleep] this, we're taking them on: supervillains, egomaniacal
> > powermongers, 3rd world dictators, poverty and illness in the "2nd" and
> > "1st" world, ultimately taking over the world.
> >
> > Oh, and The Authority uses lethal jaw-shattering eyeball-popping force
> > without, ahem, blinking an eye. And they drink, use drugs and smoke.
It's
> > definitely not a "kiddie" book--but it is about superheroes, or at least
> > people, adults, with superpowers.
As arrogant as it is and as loathe as I am to do so, you've forced my hand:
I'm sorry. I normal try to avoid focusing on grammar online, especially
since I'm prone to typos and mispellings and even redundancies. However one
long paragraph, argh, I've only done this one other time--just for it to
make sense to me.
Now, to your points. Yes, with great power comes great responsibility AND
great temptation to abuse said power. Personally, I disagree that power
corrupts. POWER MAGNIFIES. Power magnifies one's predilection for good and
ill. However it also magnifies temptation and mistakes. With more power, you
are more likely to think you are above the law or at least get away with
breaking it. Power magnifies mistakes--and in so doing, makes it all the
harder to makeup for those mistakes. It's one thing for someone to
accidentally drop a hammer on your foot versus someone who accidentally
drops a small nuke on your foot.
I agree that WITH great power comes great responsibility--but the problems
with the Responsible mode model are:
a) Our Heroes feels responsible enough to use power for selfless good ONLY
(thus Spider-Man is dead broke instead of thinking he could use his powers
for personal financial gain, without bothering to figure if he was
financially sound, he could spend more time heroing), and
b) yet Our Heroes convenient stop only at fighting crime AFTER the fact
without trying to prevent crime--or help people in other ways. Our Heroes
don't run for office or try to start a social organization or fertilize
barren soil for poor countries. It's like the way Our Heroes have advanced
technology but somehow that rarely if ever gets shared with the public at
large. Or in the JLA there was mini-series where the heroes went to heaven,
purgatory (or maybe limbo) and hell and it had absolutely no effect on their
spiritual beliefs--including Batman who remained about as skeptical and
disbelieving as can be.
One of the nice things I liked about an issue of SUPERGIRL, written by Peter
David, he had Supergirl simply show up in public ice-skating. Not
crime-fighting or on patrol, just ice-skating. Why? So the public would NOT
only associate Supergirl's presence with tragedy or danger.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
Which is another way of saying "my definition of 'story' is better than your
definition of 'story'".
Following that logic, if I don't read every Star Wars novel, from the
original series, the Expanded Universe, the Young Jedi Knights, the Junior
Jedi Knights, the Clone Wars novels, the Episode novels, the New Jedi Order
novels, the specially published novels for Barnes & Noble (yes, yes, there
was such a thing), the Dark Horse Comics Star Wars comics including the Star
Wars: Infinites, then I don't deserve to like Star Wars much less critique
it since I don't have the all-encompassing view of the shared-Star Wars
universe.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
TOUGH LOVE!
Time for an intervention.
Stop enabling their dysfunction!
Cut him off, cold turkey.
Batman won't get better if you keep buying the crap. All you're doing is
endorsing the crap--and thus REINFORCING CRAP.
Just say no to crap comics.
-- Ken from Chicago (who bought MARVEL KNIGHTS: 4 #1--because ULTIMATE
FANTASTIC FOUR was so good, and never bought another issue because MK:4#1
was crap--meanwhile I'm picking up UFF#6 on Wednesday)
Brian Henderson
<clell_...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Why?
Because 99% of the enjoyment I get out of comics is the cliffhanger.
It gives me time to think about what might happen next, to get online
and talk about it and maybe second guess the writer and see if we're
right.
If you have TPBs, that's destroyed.
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>Unfortunately, as far as I'm concerned, that type of stories is
>usually badly crafted and have no shred of originality. From Squadron
>Supreme to Watchmen to The Authority and beyond, they *all* end up
>taking over the world. However good intentions they start out with,
>they *always* end up being corrupted (which is, with great glee, also
>shown in their vulgar choice of words and vices).
Why do you act surprised? They're human, of course they're going to
get corrupted! That's REALITY!
If you want fantasy, read Superman. Give me reality any day.
darkk
>
> I think the author might disagree with you.
Point conceded. :-)
There was a lot more going on, including the "psychotic" angle and more :)
> Regardless, a great story is rarely "all about" just one thing.
Conceded again.
But problem is that Dc seems to churn out issues month after month, which
are almost always all about just one thing.
... as opposed to maintaining a good mix.
> > BooM! KA-KA-THOOM! POW! "My powers are better than yours! I will use
power X
> > to counteract your power Y! I will sic you with my Giant spider robot!"
>
> That's what one group of fans wants. Otherwise, we'd never see who'od
> win threads.
Indeed, there is such a group. And DC is justified for catering to that
segment of the audience too. But the problem is that they seem to *focus* on
this segment nowadays. Despite every evidence that there is a significant
volume of more serious type of readers too.
> > The drivel stuff is probably still a story but the point is that we the
> > readers, are the consumers for DC's products. And the dollars we splurge
> > every month, we do have a right to expect our money's worth...
>
> A significant group of fans will keep buying no matter whether they like
> the material or not. THAT behavior has to be fixed before DC or Marvel
> will truly start listening.
>
> --
> Johanna Draper Carlson
Au contraire, collectors, usually at least, target currently *popular*
comics in general. How many collectors would clamor for Pacific's "Captain
Victory" ?
And a comic that gets boring usually falls out of favor with the collectors
as well after a while. Heck I personally collected "Fury of Firestorm" for
almost 50 issues or so. I was would go through the whole stacks of comics
back then in bookshops, hunting for issues that were missing from my
collection and I didn't even have an idea that the character was popular or
not. I just found him a fun character and enjoyed the issues. And then came
the Pozhar saga and Firestorm's transformation into an "fire elemental" at
which point it got too boring for words(read "no fun or humour"), and I lost
interest. It stopped being a fun character. And so I stopped
buying/collecting any further issues.
Yeah I know that I am just one person, but around issue #100 DC decided to
cancel the title citing "dwindling sales" (as opposed to firestorm's earlier
sales, which boosted him to a "rising star" status in view of DCs marketing
staff. They even put out an ad with the same words). So I guess there were
others readers like me, who did the same as me.
Janus
news:p3rac0hef00e2q0ks...@4ax.com:
Even Superman has been corrupted, on multiple levels, at different times.
Matches Malone
> thes...@aol.com (Matches Malone) wrote in message news:<79f06764.04060...@posting.google.com>...
> > Wow; generalize much? I've been reading comics for about 30 years,
> > and I have at least a decent eye for detail. But I do not care
> > whether this "DCU" construct makes any sense. That has nothing to do
> > with "ignorance". If you really, genuinely believe that the DCU is a
> > "meaningful narrative structure", more power to you, but it's a
> > mistake to assume that anyone who points out that the whole idea
> > behind said "narrative structure" is flawed must do so out of
> > ignorance.
>
> If it's not because you're ignorant about continuity, it's because you
> don't care about it. Either way, you are not the proper audience for
> the shared universe type of stories. You would be just as happy with a
> fragmented universe.
So does that mean the "proper audience" is only those who eat up
the big picture, i.e. buy the whole line? Marketing a product that
way is a great way to ensure it will appeal to only an insular,
die-hard niche market and.. oh wait.. here we are.
- Matches
Johanna Draper Carlson
> But problem is that Dc seems to churn out issues month after month, which
> are almost always all about just one thing.
That's not a DC problem, that's a problem with serial comics with
franchise characters.
> DC is justified for catering to that segment of the audience too. But
> the problem is that they seem to *focus* on this segment nowadays.
> Despite every evidence that there is a significant volume of more
> serious type of readers too.
I don't think Vertigo and a number of the WildStorm books focus on
"bang! pow!", just at a quick look. Now, maybe most of the DCU comics --
but if you want serious reading, the DCU may not be the place to look
for it. I'm not bothered by that because there are so many other great
comics out there.
Selaboc
> > If it's not because you're ignorant about continuity, it's because you
> > don't care about it. Either way, you are not the proper audience for
> > the shared universe type of stories. You would be just as happy with a
> > fragmented universe.
> >
> > - Tue
>
> Which is another way of saying "my definition of 'story' is better than your
> definition of 'story'".
>
> Following that logic, if I don't read every Star Wars novel, from the
> original series, the Expanded Universe, the Young Jedi Knights, the Junior
> Jedi Knights, the Clone Wars novels, the Episode novels, the New Jedi Order
> novels, the specially published novels for Barnes & Noble (yes, yes, there
> was such a thing), the Dark Horse Comics Star Wars comics including the Star
> Wars: Infinites,
(quick aside, Star Wars: Infinities are outside the Star Wars
Universe. they are the Star Wars equivilent to "What IF" and
"Elseworld" and thus does factor into a discussion of continuity).
> then I don't deserve to like Star Wars much less critique
> it since I don't have the all-encompassing view of the shared-Star Wars
> universe.
Not at all. One can like and/or critique Star Wars without reading all
of the above, as long as one limits the critique to what one HAS
knowledge of. It's when one tries to criticize Star Wars for being a
shared-universe because that person doesn't like shared-universes that
they would be classified as "not the proper audience for the shared
universe type of stories" and thus should probably find something
other than Star Wars to read.
Selaboc
> P.S. Personally, I think the "solution" to the comics biz is switching over
> to TPBs or HCs only. Drop the serial aspects, including the numbering, like
> the much of the rest of the publishing industry does even with book series.
Except, even within the rest of the publish industry you can find
serials. Go to your local bookstore. See all the Manga with numbers on
their spine (some even in double digits). See all the Trilogies (for
example Lord of the Rings) and other serial stories (for example Harry
Potter) not to mention serial franchises (Star Wars New Jedi Order was
19 books long with serveral multi-book stories among the 19 book
larger arc with some of the main characters, Like Mara Jade and Leia's
three children, that were created in books published previously) and
look in the young/intermediate readers section and you will find
numbered serial fiction books (Nancy Drew, Hardy Boys, Star Wars,
Smallville, etc). Numbered serial fiction is not unique to the current
format of comic books.
Tue Sorensen
> "Tue Sorensen" <twoc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c50450f6.04060...@posting.google.com...
> > "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote in
> message news:<6zYwc.20759$eH1.9...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>...
> > [lengthy debate snipped to make this post easier to read]
> > >
> > > This debate demonstrates why THE AUTHORITY, written by Warren Ellis, is
> so
> > > popular, because it's a series about superheroes who shucked mere
> > > crimefighting or supervillain fighting, but saw the problems of the
> world
> > > and said [bleep] this, we're taking them on: supervillains, egomaniacal
> > > powermongers, 3rd world dictators, poverty and illness in the "2nd" and
> > > "1st" world, ultimately taking over the world.
> > >
> > > Oh, and The Authority uses lethal jaw-shattering eyeball-popping force
> > > without, ahem, blinking an eye. And they drink, use drugs and smoke.
> It's
> > > definitely not a "kiddie" book--but it is about superheroes, or at least
> > > people, adults, with superpowers.
>
> As arrogant as it is and as loathe as I am to do so, you've forced my hand:
I don't understand what you mean...?
For what?
> I normal try to avoid focusing on grammar online, especially
> since I'm prone to typos and mispellings and even redundancies. However one
> long paragraph, argh, I've only done this one other time--just for it to
> make sense to me.
I still don't understand. Are you talking about my comments or your
own? Was there a problem with my grammar?
> Now, to your points. Yes, with great power comes great responsibility AND
> great temptation to abuse said power. Personally, I disagree that power
> corrupts. POWER MAGNIFIES.
Yes, that's a very good point. A *very* good point.
> Power magnifies one's predilection for good and
> ill. However it also magnifies temptation and mistakes. With more power, you
> are more likely to think you are above the law or at least get away with
> breaking it. Power magnifies mistakes--and in so doing, makes it all the
> harder to makeup for those mistakes. It's one thing for someone to
> accidentally drop a hammer on your foot versus someone who accidentally
> drops a small nuke on your foot.
>
> I agree that WITH great power comes great responsibility--but the problems
> with the Responsible mode model are:
>
> a) Our Heroes feels responsible enough to use power for selfless good ONLY
> (thus Spider-Man is dead broke instead of thinking he could use his powers
> for personal financial gain, without bothering to figure if he was
> financially sound, he could spend more time heroing), and
True - but if he used his powers for self-gain, he wouldn't be the
under-dog that we know and love! But it's true, you've got a point,
and maybe it deserves to be explored, but the question is whether it
would then still be Spider-Man.
> b) yet Our Heroes convenient stop only at fighting crime AFTER the fact
> without trying to prevent crime--or help people in other ways.
> Our Heroes don't run for office
Green Arrow once ran for mayor (against the advice of all his friends,
incl. Superman and Batman and Green Lantern). He wasn't elected, but I
thought the initiative was brilliantly true to his character. But of
course, it's an exception.
> or try to start a social organization or fertilize
> barren soil for poor countries.
I would like them to. But superheroes so far have battled world
problems in more symbolical terms, by fighting supervillains. They've
taken things so far into the realm of generalization that it's been
down to "good" vs. "evil". Which I think worked very well a lot of the
time. Especially when it's clear that the writers know and care about
world problems. There's been Hulk stories set in Jerusalem, focusing
on the insanity of the Middle-East conflict. There's been Spidey
stories where Peter Parker went to Ireland as a journalist to write
about the troubles there. But again, these are stories are,
unfortunately, exceptions. I would like to see the heroes deal with
real-world problems, but in many cases, the writers who do write such
stories cannot dissociate themselves from the "individual power issue"
of the characters involved, and so it becomes about the corrupting
influence of power instead of about the real-world issue. I'm sure you
agree that this has been the case, and that it is not the right way to
present real-world issues.
Books like The Authority, which have hell-bent "heroes" assassinating
Third World dictators, deviate from classic superhero comics in many
disgusting ways, but even so they are also the first small step in the
right direction: Putting some actual attention to real-world issues in
a context of superheroes. What I want this to develop into is
something that is quite simply more level-headed; something that
doesn't have that obnoxious British attitude; something that indeed
focuses on the problems and not the allegedly corrupting power. I want
to see heroes fertilizing barren soil. Stopping desertification.
Cleaning up polluted areas. Help starving and otherwise suffering
people. Work with relief agencies and humanitarian organizations.
Doing things that are models for what *we*, the readers, who after all
read superhero comics to discover and realize our own personal
heroism, should be concerned about. of course, the perennial problem
is that any such thing will be politically loaded...
But when you say that POWER MAGNIFIES, you do indeed have a hell of a
good point, which also sums up my critique of the superhero-loathing
Brit writers. Superheroes are HEROES. That's a given. If they get
great POWER, their heroism is also MAGNIFIED. This is what a bunch of
those British writers can't understand. All they're ever on about is
"Power Corrupts!!!!!!!!!!". Bloody Lord Acton Fan Club.
> It's like the way Our Heroes have advanced
> technology but somehow that rarely if ever gets shared with the public at
> large. Or in the JLA there was mini-series where the heroes went to heaven,
> purgatory (or maybe limbo) and hell and it had absolutely no effect on their
> spiritual beliefs--including Batman who remained about as skeptical and
> disbelieving as can be.
>
> One of the nice things I liked about an issue of SUPERGIRL, written by Peter
> David, he had Supergirl simply show up in public ice-skating. Not
> crime-fighting or on patrol, just ice-skating. Why? So the public would NOT
> only associate Supergirl's presence with tragedy or danger.
I totally agree.
- Tue
Tue Sorensen
Yes, I do believe my definition of "story" fits a shared universe a
lot better than that guy's. If not, how and why would a shared
universe ever have emerged? It is built on certain basic rules, one of
the most important of which is that the continuity is consistent.
Based on your initial post, you should understand that better than
most people.
But as time goes by and thousands of stories accumulate, I can
understand that the continuity of a shared universe begins to get
unwieldy. And apparently we're now at a point where the editors
themselves don't particularly want to maintain a consistent continuity
anymore, because they don't feel it is important (whether to
themselves, their creators or the audience). It's too bad for die-hard
continuity fans, but maybe it just can't be helped.
> Following that logic, if I don't read every Star Wars novel, from the
> original series, the Expanded Universe, the Young Jedi Knights, the Junior
> Jedi Knights, the Clone Wars novels, the Episode novels, the New Jedi Order
> novels, the specially published novels for Barnes & Noble (yes, yes, there
> was such a thing), the Dark Horse Comics Star Wars comics including the Star
> Wars: Infinites, then I don't deserve to like Star Wars much less critique
> it since I don't have the all-encompassing view of the shared-Star Wars
> universe.
That might have been a valid point if the Star Wars Universe had as
complex, as problematic and as contradictory a continuity as
mainstream superhero comics have... Besides, it is ultimately the
editors' and writers' (but mostly the editors') job to maintain
continuity. The reader should just lean back and assume that the
editors're doing their job.
- Tue
The Babaloughesian
You wrote one big paragraph. He divided it into three paragraphs for easier
comprehension.
Darkk
> But that just means that the writer thought superheroes were only
> about force and violence. It is, in many ways, the very violence in
> superhero comics that symbolize their struggle to make a better world.
> Someone I know (who doesn't read superhero comics) once commented that
> superheroes solve problems in the worst possible way: through
> violence. I just think that's a *total* misunderstanding of what
> superhero stories are about.
Sometimes one *has* to use violence.
Take that sniper guy in USA. Obviously a psycho. So how do you negotiate
with someone who doesn't has both oars in the water ?
You cannot and either capturing that person by force and locking him up or
just doing away with him is the only solution.
But then there are political situations. Wars. Terrorism. One has to defend
himself ofcourse. But there are cases where violence *can* be avoided. Where
you can negotiate. Or else in case of terrorism, where you cannot negotiate,
you try and create a better atmosphere beforehand, try not to create
griveances, and diffusing all that hatred from being formed to begin with.
Superheroes are supposed to be "heroes" too. Someone who is a rolemodel. A
hero might not always prevail at the end of the story. Indeed, there are
many stories fictional and in real life, where heroes die in the end. But
even in their death, they still do what heroes are truly supposed to *do*.
Inspire.
> I think that's primarily *your* interpretation. I still think it's
> basically a "Guns don't kill people; people kill people" point.
You missed the part where I said "Oh well, it is all just interpretation of
a story. I cannot shove mine forecfully down your throat ofcourse. And
author's interpretation is ofcourse the authoritarian one. So I digress.
:-)"
> Unfortunately, many writers tend to take superheroes for granted,
> forgetting the heroic, moral element (or being incapable of working
> usefully with it).
Exactly.
What is so "super" about Superman fighting a giant spider exactly, with all
his powers ? And when he loses his powers, he just runs away sniveling, to
his workplace ignoring all the looting and killing and rioting going on
around him.
Is this DC's idea of a "hero" ? Establishing Superman officially as someone
who only acts tough as long as it is safe, but is actually a coward at the
core ? This is *Superman*! A hero to the core! The guy who inspires all
other heroes. Who is supposed to be the best and most noble of them all! He
is a coward at heart ?
Johanna thinks we readers are too hard on writers. But hey, *someone* out
there is not doing their job they are paid to do. It need not be Waid. Maybe
Waid is a misfit at writing these kind of stories. Maybe he is going through
a bad phase. Nobody is perfect all the time. Heck, people are capable of
messing with Superman in worse ways. Recall that movie script with gay jimmy
olsen and Kryptonian Luthor and god knows what not. Waid is at least nowhere
that far gone. And Waid is probably a genius at writing some other sort of
story. But in the end someone was supposed to prevent this kind of bad
characterization from getting out. Someone was supposed to have a talk with
him and tell him he was going over the top.
Unfortunately readers don't know who was the person who didn't do his/her
job and usually see only Waid's name on the covers.
> But due to the population explosion, half of everybody who's ever
> lived are alive today. So in absolute numbers, I'm sure more people
> have been killed by modern weapons. The two or three million north
> Vietnamese killed in U.S. bombardments during the Vietnam War, for
> instance, weigh heavily on the scales.
Half of everybody who has lived are alive today but not half of them are
dead yet. And certainly not from guns and bombs.
And lots of them probably might also be dying in domestic violence, riots,
knifed etc. Anyhow, the whole things is pretty debatable so no point I
guess.
> Yeah, so why doesn't he? Wouldn't make exciting comics, would it?
Peace on Earth was definitely a nice read for most readers.
And you cannot always provide a perfect solution. Sometimes you can only
point out what is *not* a solution and counter-productive.
Glenn Simpson
> lot better than that guy's. If not, how and why would a shared
> universe ever have emerged? It is built on certain basic rules, one of
> the most important of which is that the continuity is consistent.
Actually, despite being a "pro" continuity person, I can't justify the
statement that, for example, because Superman appears in a Batman
comic, Superman and Batman live in the same world. All that means is
that there is A Superman who lives in Batman's world, but that doesn't
mean that it's the same Superman who appears in Superman's comics.
So if Superman shows up in Batman's comics and gets weakened when
around magic, but in Superman's book he is just vulnerable to magic,
it's not necessarily absolutely a screw-up. It might mean that the
Superman who lives in Batman's world is different from the Superman
who lives in Superman's world.
Of course, then there's the story that starts in Superman and
continues in Batman. That means that the Supermen and Batmen of both
worlds are having a similar adventure. But that still doesn't mean
it's the same characters. In fact, that explains why sometimes events
in the tenth part don't exactly jibe with the first - it's not really
a continuation of the same story.
Granted, I think that the assumption they live in the same world is a
more natural one, but it's not the sole interpretation.
Mike Ward
news:f674a38c.04060...@posting.google.com:
>> Yes, I do believe my definition of "story" fits a shared universe a
>> lot better than that guy's. If not, how and why would a shared
>> universe ever have emerged? It is built on certain basic rules, one of
>> the most important of which is that the continuity is consistent.
>
> Actually, despite being a "pro" continuity person, I can't justify the
> statement that, for example, because Superman appears in a Batman
> comic, Superman and Batman live in the same world. All that means is
> that there is A Superman who lives in Batman's world, but that doesn't
> mean that it's the same Superman who appears in Superman's comics.
>
> So if Superman shows up in Batman's comics and gets weakened when
> around magic, but in Superman's book he is just vulnerable to magic,
> it's not necessarily absolutely a screw-up. It might mean that the
> Superman who lives in Batman's world is different from the Superman
> who lives in Superman's world.
>
> Of course, then there's the story that starts in Superman and
> continues in Batman. That means that the Supermen and Batmen of both
> worlds are having a similar adventure. But that still doesn't mean
> it's the same characters.
Okay I was with you up to this point.
I think a story that crosses over from one title to another absoluelty
implies that the two titles are at least for that crossover in the same
continuity.
If not then we'd have the first half of one story but no second half though
we'd have the second half a story whose unpublished first half could be
infered to be similar the first half of the story with no second half.
Mike
Andrew Ryan Chang
>That's why I have no beef with a reboot -- it's an honest start, and not an
>attempt to get me to buy a comic that pretends to be the history I always
>followed.
Then why do reboots (often) eventually take on the dumb tertiary
stuff the reboot was intended to dump?
--
"On the one hand, as [GW Bush] said throughout the campaign, the huge surpluses
forecast for the next 10 years make a massive tax cut only fair and proper. On
the other hand, he warns now, the declining economy requires a massive tax cut
to prop it up." -- David Sarasohn, Oregonial editorial 02/07/01
Brian Henderson
>Even Superman has been corrupted, on multiple levels, at different times.
Until he's been rebooted at which point he goes back to being the Big
Blue Boyscout again. Are we really supposed to believe that after
he's gone "bad" a couple times, the governments of the world would
ever trust him again?
Clell Harmon
So the perfect comic, for you, would be a series of last pages?
Personally I love TPBs. They allow me to reread favorite story lines
while maintaining my collection
The Black Guardian
>> Yes, I do believe my definition of "story" fits a shared universe a
>> lot better than that guy's. If not, how and why would a shared
>> universe ever have emerged? It is built on certain basic rules, one of
>> the most important of which is that the continuity is consistent.
>
> Actually, despite being a "pro" continuity person, I can't justify the
> statement that, for example, because Superman appears in a Batman
> comic, Superman and Batman live in the same world. All that means is
> that there is A Superman who lives in Batman's world, but that doesn't
> mean that it's the same Superman who appears in Superman's comics.
Sure, but that's not what happens.
--
-=[ The BlakGard ]=-
"Somewhere there's danger;
somewhere there's injustice,
and somewhere else the tea is getting cold!"
The Black Guardian
>>> Why?
>>
>> Because 99% of the enjoyment I get out of comics is the cliffhanger.
>> It gives me time to think about what might happen next, to get online
>> and talk about it and maybe second guess the writer and see if we're
>> right.
>>
>> If you have TPBs, that's destroyed.
>
> So the perfect comic, for you, would be a series of last pages?
Why don't you try actually reading what he wrote, rather than put your foot in
your mouth.
Ken from Chicago
"Brian Henderson" <BrianL.H...@NOSPAM.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:01ccc0hhnu6fp2f4f...@4ax.com...
Of course they would--publicly--while doing precisely what Batman did about
the JLA or what the government did about Hyperion in SUPREME POWER, written
by J. Michael Straczynski, or the government did about the Specials in
RISING STARS, also scribed by JMS: find their weaknesses and develop ways to
"stop" them . . . just in case.
-- Ken from Chicago
Tue Sorensen
> twoc...@hotmail.com (Tue Sorensen) wrote in message news:<c50450f6.04060...@posting.google.com>...
> > thes...@aol.com (Matches Malone) wrote in message news:<79f06764.04060...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > > Wow; generalize much? I've been reading comics for about 30 years,
> > > and I have at least a decent eye for detail. But I do not care
> > > whether this "DCU" construct makes any sense. That has nothing to do
> > > with "ignorance". If you really, genuinely believe that the DCU is a
> > > "meaningful narrative structure", more power to you, but it's a
> > > mistake to assume that anyone who points out that the whole idea
> > > behind said "narrative structure" is flawed must do so out of
> > > ignorance.
> >
> > If it's not because you're ignorant about continuity, it's because you
> > don't care about it. Either way, you are not the proper audience for
> > the shared universe type of stories. You would be just as happy with a
> > fragmented universe.
>
> So does that mean the "proper audience" is only those who eat up
> the big picture, i.e. buy the whole line?
Yes and no. There are layers here. Continuity was always the bonus
that you got as a reward for following most or all of the stories.
Those who just read the comics for the individual stories might not
appreciate or even see the big picture, but in good comics both levels
can - or once could - be present. Making the product fit for different
kinds of audiences. What I complain about is that the bonus is
practically no longer there, and the reason is that editors (or quite
possibly upper management) no longer care about it, which I think is a
big mistake that is hollowing out the fan and reader base.
- Tue
Tue Sorensen
> >>>> Plus people who don't follow every single twist tend to outnumber
> >>>> those
> who
> >>>> do--and guess which a publisher is going to opt for?
> >>>
> >>> Well, that doesn't really explain the proliferation of big
> >>> cross-over events - but maybe you're referring to the current
> >>> audience as opposed to the audience of the late '80s? And as for
> >>> the current audience, there hasn't really been a big cross-over
> >>> event recently enough to say if a majority of the audience would
> >>> buy it...
> >>>
> >>> - Tue
> >>
> >> The thing that sealed the deal for me against cross-overs was,
> >> ironically, an x-over: X-CUTIONER'S SONG (I still said it should
> >> have been X-ECUTIONER'S SONG, but I'm some schmoe from Chicago). A
> >> 20-part crossover in which nothing is accomplished, only to be
> >> followed up by ANOTHER 20-part x-over, PHALANX COVENANT. No, no, a
> >> thousand times no. I was out.
> >
> > I have to agree that those particular two cross-overs were
> > exceptionally bad, admittedly. Both of them also disappointed me
> > greatly. Crappy, insubstantial stories.
>
> And I think we can reach an easy consensus that just because you CAN
> crossover, you always should, especially with a cosmic event every year.
> Crossoveritis is the other extreme in a shared-seriel-continuity universe.
> I'm sure just as many contuinity-minded people bristle at Useless X-over
> Event #6 as non-continuity people do for different reasons. Sometimes, a
> well executed event can strengthen the universe (While not an especially
> strong story, I really think Legends did that actually)
>
> Sloppy execution of an idea should never be used as a grounds against the
> idea itself.
Agreed.
- Tue
Ken from Chicago
"Selaboc" <c64...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c20e9e9.04060...@posting.google.com...
Sure, you can find series, but the trend is away from numbering, except for
limited series, duologies, trilogies, etc. Star Trek novels are a classic
example. Increasingly they have limited series, arc, trilogies, or sometimes
longer, like the A TIME TO ... mini-series.
Now I'm not arguing that there should be no building between TPBs, but there
should be enough info in each for each to stand on their own. However if
there are layers of entertainment so that having read previous TPBs
increases my enjoyment, that's bonus.
BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER had Buffy helping a girl who had ran away from home
with her boyfriend to Los Angeles only he ended up killed and the girlfriend
ended up part of slave trade ran by extradimensional demons. Buffy rescued
her and helped her realize she could stand on her own two feet and survive
on her own.
Two years later on ANGEL (a BTVS spin-off about a vampire with a
conscience), Angel helped out a shelter for runaway kids being plagued by
zombies. The shelter was being run by the girl Buffy had helped. Now you
didn't need to see the earlier episode to enjoy it, but it was a bonus that
ADDED to the enjoyment as opposed to a requirement that would have
SUBTRACTED had you not seen the prior episode.
-- Ken from Chicago
Tue Sorensen
> "Tue Sorensen" <twoc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c50450f6.04060...@posting.google.com...
> > "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote in
> > > I'm sorry.
> >
> > For what?
> >
> > > I normal try to avoid focusing on grammar online, especially
> > > since I'm prone to typos and mispellings and even redundancies. However
> one
> > > long paragraph, argh, I've only done this one other time--just for it to
> > > make sense to me.
> >
> > I still don't understand. Are you talking about my comments or your
> > own? Was there a problem with my grammar?
>
> You wrote one big paragraph. He divided it into three paragraphs for easier
> comprehension.
Ah! :-)
- Tue
Tue Sorensen
> "Tue Sorensen" <twoc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c50450f6.0406...@posting.google.com...
>
> > But that just means that the writer thought superheroes were only
> > about force and violence. It is, in many ways, the very violence in
> > superhero comics that symbolize their struggle to make a better world.
> > Someone I know (who doesn't read superhero comics) once commented that
> > superheroes solve problems in the worst possible way: through
> > violence. I just think that's a *total* misunderstanding of what
> > superhero stories are about.
>
> Sometimes one *has* to use violence.
> Take that sniper guy in USA. Obviously a psycho. So how do you negotiate
> with someone who doesn't has both oars in the water ?
> You cannot and either capturing that person by force and locking him up or
> just doing away with him is the only solution.
>
> But then there are political situations. Wars. Terrorism. One has to defend
> himself ofcourse. But there are cases where violence *can* be avoided. Where
> you can negotiate. Or else in case of terrorism, where you cannot negotiate,
> you try and create a better atmosphere beforehand, try not to create
> griveances, and diffusing all that hatred from being formed to begin with.
>
> Superheroes are supposed to be "heroes" too. Someone who is a rolemodel. A
> hero might not always prevail at the end of the story. Indeed, there are
> many stories fictional and in real life, where heroes die in the end. But
> even in their death, they still do what heroes are truly supposed to *do*.
>
> Inspire.
Sure. I agree with all of that.
> Half of everybody who has lived are alive today but not half of them are
> dead yet.
LOL! Right you are!
> > Yeah, so why doesn't he? Wouldn't make exciting comics, would it?
>
> Peace on Earth was definitely a nice read for most readers.
Hm - was that the oversize Alex Ross Superman thing? I remember it as
rather dull - and I *like* naďvely utopian stories! But maybe I should
take another look at it.
> And you cannot always provide a perfect solution. Sometimes you can only
> point out what is *not* a solution and counter-productive.
Yeah, but too much of this becomes tiresome if no solutions are
suggested.
- Tue
Bennet
In fact, every panel could be in a different reality! That would take
care of all those pesky continuity issues.
Even if I weren't a continuity fan, I would consider a cross-over
story that wasn't self-consistent to simply be a bad diea.
As ever,
Bennet
Jack Bohn
>Jay and Diane Rudin <ru...@ev1.net> wrote:
>>That's why I have no beef with a reboot -- it's an honest start, and not an
>>attempt to get me to buy a comic that pretends to be the history I always
>>followed.
>
> Then why do reboots (often) eventually take on the dumb tertiary
>stuff the reboot was intended to dump?
Fandom. What one fan considers dumb, another has at least a bit
of affection for. Mr. Myxlplyx, Bizzaro, Supergirl, Krypto...
and each writer, having been a fan himself, has something he
wants to bring back.
--
-Jack
Jay and Diane Rudin
JR> That's why I have no beef with a reboot -- it's an
JR> honest start, and not an attempt to get me to buy
JR> a comic that pretends to be the history I always followed.
> Then why do reboots (often) eventually take on the dumb tertiary
> stuff the reboot was intended to dump?
In many cases, is because the original idea was good, and then got reused
and extended into rampant silliness.
The first Bizarro story was wonderful -- emotional, sentimental and tragic.
Reuse of the character eventually led to "Tales of the Bizarro World" and
"Bits of Bizarro Business" (which I loved, at age 7).
When Byrne re-booted Superman in 1986, he immediately re-told the original
Bizarro story -- a good decision, in my view. That doesn't mean I want to
see the staff of the Daily Htrae again.
Jay Rudin
Ken from Chicago
"Jack Bohn" <jack...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:iimdc05gj6qmn9f8l...@4ax.com...
Ah, but they want to bring it back "right".
> --
> -Jack
Also publishers know the previous stuff sold, thus when in doubt, trot the
old stuff out.
-- Ken from Cicago
Brian Henderson
<kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>Of course they would--publicly--while doing precisely what Batman did about
>the JLA or what the government did about Hyperion in SUPREME POWER, written
>by J. Michael Straczynski, or the government did about the Specials in
>RISING STARS, also scribed by JMS: find their weaknesses and develop ways to
>"stop" them . . . just in case.
Hyperion is an excellent example of a much more realistic take on
Superman. The problem with both Hyperion and Superman is that there
isn't really any way to stop them, they're both far too powerful and
SHOULD be trying to take over. It takes a lot of nonsense-rhetoric in
order to come up with a reason why Superman isn't running the planet
right now.
Brian Henderson
<clell_...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> So the perfect comic, for you, would be a series of last pages?
It would be a story which ends on some sort of cliffhanger that allows
me more enjoyment than the 5 minutes it takes me to read the silly
thing.
> Personally I love TPBs. They allow me to reread favorite story lines
>while maintaining my collection
I don't have a collection. I read comics. That's it. I can re-read
anything I've gotten because I have no plans for selling it, nor do I
care if it stays in mint condition.