The ever-popular character aging discussion.
Glenn Simpson
> "George Grattan" <gra...@rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:B88D63EF.F798%gra...@rcn.com...
>
> > Can't take credit for that point, Grant
>
> Ok, I read that post again, and you might not have actually *made* that
> point in it, but I certainly *read* that point in it, and that qualifies it
> for giving credit where credit is due as far as I can tell. I probably
> should have qualified it as an "implication" or something. :)
>
>
> > [. . . W]hile I think a T:YO is a fine idea in and of
> > itself, I'd be more interested in a Titans:Elseworlds mini-series that
> would
> > allow the characters to age as they would have if DC ran on real-time from
> > the 60s forward.
>
> I've thought for quite a while now that as far as universes go, I wish that
> both Marvel and DC (but especially DC) had at some point started "parallel"
> universes where the characters aged. Superman wouldn't age, so there's no
> problem there (though his supporting cast would), and Batman would be on
> Batman IV or V by now (unless one of the heirs kept the title way too
> long--which could be an interesting story, I think).
>
> Longtime readers would get to grow up with the characters (or the other way
> around), and for new readers, the universes could introduce new characters
> who wouldn't have a zillion issues of back-story to mess with and to whom
> the new-reader-unfriendly bits would be just as inscrutable as for new
> readers.
>
> It would also benefit those cheezy characters introduced in the 1970s by
> allowing them to have been cool in their day and either changed their sense
> of style in the 1980s or be the ones the next generation of heroes calls up
> to borrow costumes from for disco parties. . . .
>
> Unfortunately, I don't see any way to start that sort of thing now, and I
> don't see any promising way for it to work retroactively. :)
>
As a long-time proponent of the "let them age" theory, I'd sorta
agree, although I don't see any need to keep the "non-aging" universe.
:) But I'm totally aware I'm in the minority here.
As for how to make this happen now, I would understand if it didn't
extend back to the actual historical dates. The characters could just
start aging now. Granted, this means that the ramifications of the
change wouldn't really affect anything any time soon.
As for making it happen, while I'm not really in favor of "events" per
se, there could be another Zero-Hour time-affecting event that had
some in-story effects of some sort, but more importantly would have
the outside-the-story effect of being the "we're going to real time
now" benchmark.
Just dreaming wildly here...
Wayne S Garmil
Glenn Simpson <gls36...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Grant Enfield" <enf...@wam.NO.umd.SPAM.edu> wrote in message news:<a4a5lo$bq4$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu>...
>> "George Grattan" <gra...@rcn.com> wrote in message
>> news:B88D63EF.F798%gra...@rcn.com...
>>
>> >real-time from the 60s forward.
See John Byrne's Generations mini-series. That's the basic premise,
that the original characters first appeared in late 30's, and everyone
ages in real time, including next generation and third generation, etc
I thought the initial concept of Earth-1 / Earth-2 was a good comic
book logic way for dealing with this issue. Of course, it was
forgotten that time on Earth-2 ran slower than time on Earth-1, so the
Earth-1 70's was in parallel with the Earth-2 50's (or was it time ran
at the same pace, but Earth-2 was just 20 years behind Earth-1?)
In any event, it is a good concept, and solves a LOT of the "too old
to still be a crime fighter" problems we see (I won't get into the
ever-slipping timelines where Crisis used to occur in Year 20 of the
modern age but now occurs in Year 2).
Wayne
--
_ __ _ __ | I see the girls walk by dressed in
' ) / // / / ) / | their summer clothes; I have to turn
/ / / o // __/ / __. __ __/ | my head until my darkness goes...
(_(_/ <_</_(_/ (__/ (_/|_/ (_(_/_ | -Rolling Stones, "Paint It Black"
Glenn Simpson
> In article <1287ea8f.02021...@posting.google.com>,
> Glenn Simpson <gls36...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >"Grant Enfield" <enf...@wam.NO.umd.SPAM.edu> wrote in message news:<a4a5lo$bq4$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu>...
> >> "George Grattan" <gra...@rcn.com> wrote in message
> >> news:B88D63EF.F798%gra...@rcn.com...
> >>
> >> would allow the characters to age as they would have if DC ran on
> >> >real-time from the 60s forward.
>
> See John Byrne's Generations mini-series. That's the basic premise,
> that the original characters first appeared in late 30's, and everyone
> ages in real time, including next generation and third generation, etc
>
> I thought the initial concept of Earth-1 / Earth-2 was a good comic
> book logic way for dealing with this issue. Of course, it was
> forgotten that time on Earth-2 ran slower than time on Earth-1, so the
> Earth-1 70's was in parallel with the Earth-2 50's (or was it time ran
> at the same pace, but Earth-2 was just 20 years behind Earth-1?)
>
> In any event, it is a good concept, and solves a LOT of the "too old
> to still be a crime fighter" problems we see (I won't get into the
> ever-slipping timelines where Crisis used to occur in Year 20 of the
> modern age but now occurs in Year 2).
>
more recent Generations series).
I too, always forgot about the "time moves at different rates" thing.
That was obviously a good way to explain why the Earth 2 heroes would
still be fairly young. Like you say, it wasn't ever really explained,
though.
I guess I would be hesitant to use parallel worlds as a solution to
getting ageing in the comics, simply because DC's policy seems to be
against it, and I figure why ask for two impossible things when I can
settle for just one :).
Bryan J. Maloney
Garmil) wrote:
> I thought the initial concept of Earth-1 / Earth-2 was a good comic
> book logic way for dealing with this issue. Of course, it was
> forgotten that time on Earth-2 ran slower than time on Earth-1, so the
> Earth-1 70's was in parallel with the Earth-2 50's (or was it time ran
> at the same pace, but Earth-2 was just 20 years behind Earth-1?)
Neither was the case. In Flash #123, it was 1961 on Earth-1 and on
Earth-2. The Flash of Earth-2 and the JSA had been in retirement for
some time. For a while, time flow was not really an issue afterwards,
until it began to be noticed by folks living on Earth-2 that things
changed there but things never seemed to really change on Earth-1.
In 1961, WWII veterans could still be presumed to possibly pretty spry
if necessary. By 1980, an explanation was invented as to why most of
the JSA wasn't aging at a natural rate (Ian Karkull). However, Helena
Wayne's birth was known to be in the mid-1950s, and she aged accordingly
in her appearances as the Huntress over the years, as did Robin. The
Infinitors were all born in the mid-to-late '60s and were hitting their
early-to-mid 20s when "Infinity, Inc." was started.
--
"A 'Cape Cod Salsa' just isn't right."
Aaron Mojo Hazouri or Bizarro No 1
mantle" of Bugs to some other rabbit. These are cartoon characters.
I guess the argument that these characters are for children -- or mindless
entertainment -- isn't going to fly among those who would like superhero comics
to be high literature.
-Aaron!
Dan
>From: gls36...@yahoo.com (Glenn Simpson)
>Date: 2/12/02 2:14 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <1287ea8f.02021...@posting.google.com>
>As a long-time proponent of the "let them age" theory, I'd sorta
>agree, although I don't see any need to keep the "non-aging" universe.
I also think there should be an "aging universe". I think that was one of the
reasons I so enjoyed Infinity, Inc. It was the old generation passing on the
torch to the new. Now, I don't think aging needs to be done in "real time",
but the floating 7-10 years is just stupid.
Dan
aa #1617
Brian Doyle
"Glenn Simpson" <gls36...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1287ea8f.02021...@posting.google.com...
> I too, always forgot about the "time moves at different rates" thing.
> That was obviously a good way to explain why the Earth 2 heroes would
> still be fairly young. Like you say, it wasn't ever really explained,
> though.
Well, it was kind of, with the advent of Ian Karkull, under Roy Thomas (In Infinity
Inc. IIRC) A villain who inadvertantly irradiated the JSA emmebers and some of their
loved ones, with a stream of chronal energy that kept them aging at a slwoer rate
whilst the world around them moved at a normal rate.
Glenn Simpson
Or maybe they are something between children's characters and high
literature. Maybe they're - comic books!
- Glenn!
Glenn Simpson
No, wait, sorry, my other smartass comment won't suffice.
You're talking about a medium where characters die, get married, have
(subtle) sex (hetro and homosexual), have mature relationships, love
their parents, become homeless, have kids, raise them well and poorly,
commit suicide, and probably a few other things that don't come to
mind.
And suddenly, by wanting the characters to age, I'm raising the bar
too far? Please.
Duggy
12.
---
- Dug.
---
George Grattan
wrote:
Two different ideas under discussion here, actually, one having to do wholly
with differences between the ways characters aged on each parallel Earth,
one having to do with how the JSAers aged solely in the context of their own
earth:
1) There's some scattering of evidence that Earth One and Earth Two were not
wholly in chronological synch with each other overall, allowing characters
to age as the years progressed on one Earth while standing still on the
other, relatively speaking. Hence, the Superman and Batman of Earth-One
stayed perpetually 29 from the perspective of Jay Garrick on Earth-Two, who
aged more or less normally in the (roughly) 20 years (our time and his)
between the first crossover in the sixties and the last in the 80s. To the
JLAers, the JSAers would have seemed to be aging much more rapidly then they
themselves were from year to year. There wasn't much evidence for this,
mind you, but there were a few editorial and caption box comments to this
effect from time to time- generally loosely phrased as "time works
differently on each of the Earths". The idea doesn't hold up all that well-
it means that at some point it would have been, say, 1975 on Earth-2 while
still being 1965 on Earth-One- and there are moments that explicitly
contradict that. Still, it was out there floating around in some vague
fashion for some time.
2) The second idea is the Ian Karkull story you reference (in the sublime
All Star Squadron Annual) which did a very good job of explaining why
several key JSAers and various friends aged so slowly over the decades on
their own Earth. IIRC, the affected characters were: Superman, Lois, Batman,
Robin, (did Catwoman make it into that scene? she was in the annual...),
Green Lantern, Flash, Joan Garrick, Hawkman, Hawkgirl, Hourman, Dr.
Mid-Nite, Starman, Sandman, Sandy, Dr. Fate, Inza Nelson, Johnny Thunder
(and Peachy Pet?), Atom, Wonder Woman, and Steve Trevor. (Could be wrong on
the last two- she wouldn't really have "needed" the explanation- and there's
no reason for him to have been there if she wasn't....) Spectre may or may
not have been there (damn this memory!), but it was a moot point in his
case. It's a great story- a wonderful example of Thomas taking a decades-old
fandom question and managing to provide an answer that was also a good tale.
IIRC, the notable absence- a character who could have used the explanation
but who couldn't be worked into the tale- was Wildcat.
In any case, the Karkull energy is a different explanation for how the
JSAers managed to age so slowly than the "time runs differently" on the two
Earths explanation- and a better one, really.
Shalom, Peace, Salam,
George Grattan
gra...@rcn.com
"These are our few live seasons. Let us live them as purely as we can, in
the present."--Annie Dillard, _Pilgrim at Tinker Creek_.
George Grattan
> aaro...@aol.combizarro (Aaron Mojo Hazouri or Bizarro No 1 ) wrote in
> message news:<20020212173729...@mb-fp.aol.com>...
>> This still seems equal to having Bugs Bunny grow old and "pass on the
>> mantle" of Bugs to some other rabbit. These are cartoon characters.
>>
>> I guess the argument that these characters are for children -- or mindless
>> entertainment -- isn't going to fly among those who would like superhero
>> comics
>> to be high literature.
>>
>> -Aaron!
>
> No, wait, sorry, my other smartass comment won't suffice.
Oh, it worked for me- as do you comments below,
>
> You're talking about a medium where characters die, get married, have
> (subtle) sex (hetro and homosexual), have mature relationships, love
> their parents, become homeless, have kids, raise them well and poorly,
> commit suicide, and probably a few other things that don't come to
> mind.
>
but there's another retort to the "it's foolish to ever expect cartoons or
characters for children* to age" position:
Gasoline Alley. Prince Valiant. The Phantom. Tarzan. Robin Hood. For Better
of For Worse. Doonesbury.
All "cartoons" (at one point or another), some created "for children," some
for adults, some for both, all aged.
There are many, many examples of "static" or perpetual chronology in comic
strips, books, and cartoons, yes-- there are also many examples of more
linear chronologies. The art form, whether one considers it high or low** (I
prefer the more relevant designation "popular," myself) is famously
elastic.
*It's highly debatable as to whether all comic book superheroes are created
for children
**If by "high literature" Aaron!*** means something like the novel, it's
worth noting that novels were considered a low art for a long time- one of
the reasons the snobs thought so was because they had characters who grew
and changed over time. Ironic, ain't it?
*** I thought that either Eliot S! Maggin or Scott! Shaw had trademarked the
"!" thing..... :-)
Thomas Galloway
George Grattan <gra...@rcn.com> wrote:
>2) The second idea is the Ian Karkull story you reference (in the sublime
>All Star Squadron Annual) which did a very good job of explaining why
>several key JSAers and various friends aged so slowly over the decades on
>their own Earth. IIRC, the affected characters were: Superman, Lois, Batman,
>Robin, (did Catwoman make it into that scene? she was in the annual...),
Nope. Only the heroes (and significant others) were affected. Catwoman was
still on the bad side of the fence.
>Green Lantern, Flash, Joan Garrick, Hawkman, Hawkgirl, Hourman, Dr.
>Mid-Nite, Starman, Sandman, Sandy, Dr. Fate, Inza Nelson, Johnny Thunder
>(and Peachy Pet?), Atom, Wonder Woman, and Steve Trevor. (Could be wrong on
>the last two- she wouldn't really have "needed" the explanation- and there's
>no reason for him to have been there if she wasn't....) Spectre may or may
>not have been there (damn this memory!), but it was a moot point in his
Spectre was there, but Dr. Mid-Nite wasn't, nor were Wonder Woman or
Steve Trevor. The story deliberately fits in a very specific place in
JSA history, to explain why Hourman left, why (in-continuity as opposed
to "He just got a solo title") Green Lantern left after a whopping one case
as JSA Chairman, and how Starman got in. Dr. Mid-Nite doesn't meet the JSA
until the next issue of All-Star Comics, which I believe corresponds to
Wonder Woman's debut (or else that was an issue or two later). One of the
weaknesses of the story is that it doesn't cover Mid-Nite, Wildcat, Mr.
Terrific, or Black Canary in terms of slow aging.
tyg t...@panix.com
Dave Doty
> The Phantom.
Does the Phantom age? I'd always thought it was the same Phantom, unaging,
starring in the "present" of the script, and all of the old Phantoms were
all created as already being retired.
Dave Doty
Dwight Williams
To read Kelley Puckett's _Batman/Nightwing: Bloodborne_, it's 20.
--
Dwight Williams - Orleans(Ottawa), ON, Canada
Personal Homesite: http://www.ncf.ca/~ad696/
*I* own my Usenet postings, not some archival service!
George Grattan
> In article <B88F398E.FA63%gra...@rcn.com>,
> George Grattan <gra...@rcn.com> wrote:
>> 2) The second idea is the Ian Karkull story you reference (in the sublime
>> All Star Squadron Annual) which did a very good job of explaining why
>> several key JSAers and various friends aged so slowly over the decades on
>> their own Earth. IIRC, the affected characters were: Superman, Lois, Batman,
>> Robin, (did Catwoman make it into that scene? she was in the annual...),
>
> Nope. Only the heroes (and significant others) were affected. Catwoman was
> still on the bad side of the fence.
Okay- just couldn't recall if she'd made it to the final scene on the
hilltop with the others, perhaps as a prisoner. She *was* in the story
earlier, yes? I just thought it would have been very like Thomas to have
made sure she got a shot of chronal energy, too, given the future history.
As ever, though, Tom- I have complete faith in your statements on such
matters.
>
>> Green Lantern, Flash, Joan Garrick, Hawkman, Hawkgirl, Hourman, Dr.
>> Mid-Nite, Starman, Sandman, Sandy, Dr. Fate, Inza Nelson, Johnny Thunder
>> (and Peachy Pet?), Atom, Wonder Woman, and Steve Trevor. (Could be wrong on
>> the last two- she wouldn't really have "needed" the explanation- and there's
>> no reason for him to have been there if she wasn't....) Spectre may or may
>> not have been there (damn this memory!), but it was a moot point in his
>
> Spectre was there, but Dr. Mid-Nite wasn't, nor were Wonder Woman or
> Steve Trevor.
But Peachy Pet was?! Quite the snub to Mid-Nite....
>The story deliberately fits in a very specific place in
> JSA history,
Yes, of course- now I remember that aspect of it as well- which was even
more metatextual than the chronal energy plot....
>to explain why Hourman left,
Growing Miraclo dependency, yes? Didn't something go wrong with a dosage in
the course of the story?
> why (in-continuity as opposed
> to "He just got a solo title") Green Lantern left after a whopping one case
> as JSA Chairman,
He failed to save the future president X, correct?
>and how Starman got in.
Crossed their paths while fighting one of Karkull's lackeys, wasn't it? Dr.
Droog or somesuch?
>Dr. Mid-Nite doesn't meet the JSA
> until the next issue of All-Star Comics, which I believe corresponds to
> Wonder Woman's debut (or else that was an issue or two later). One of the
> weaknesses of the story is that it doesn't cover Mid-Nite, Wildcat, Mr.
> Terrific, or Black Canary in terms of slow aging.
Had Terrific made his first appearance by this point? Canary certainly
hadn't- but Thomas came up with another solution for that anyway, partially-
made her (logically) ten years or so younger than the other JSAers and then,
of course, have the JLA BC turn out to be her daughter- so the mother's
aging so well was really never much of an issue, given that she dies
fighting Aquarius.
Mid-Nite and Wildcat are the real misses, of course- which is odd: you think
he'd have found a way to work in at least Dr. McNider and Ted Grant into the
story, not wanting to use their alter-egos. (I've wondered why Jimmy Olsen
wasn't roped in somehow as well for his chronal booster shot- if Robin
warranted one, surely Jim did....)
Ah- I've got to dig out that Annual next time I get a chance....
Grant Enfield
"Aaron Mojo Hazouri or Bizarro No 1 " <aaro...@aol.combizarro> wrote in
message news:20020212173729...@mb-fp.aol.com...
> This still seems equal to having Bugs Bunny grow old and "pass on the
> mantle" of Bugs to some other rabbit. These are cartoon characters.
I'll take you seriously, at least for the moment. :)
1) Bugs exists in a purely episodic world (to the best of my knowledge)--no
film refers to others.
2) Bugs Bunny films were made for a period of time, then stopped. There's no
ongoing Bugs Bunny Project or anything. And there's no attempt to redo Bugs
Bunny so he's marketable to a new generation of viewers. He's all reprints,
as it were.
Those are two significant differences to me.
Superhero comics, on the other hand, exist in a serial world where
individual issues may not rely on earlier issues, but they understand that
there *are* earlier issues. And superhero comics continue to be produced,
and both Marvel and DC have made attempts to repackage characters for new
sets of readers.
I'll add too that comics have had characters age, but the characters who age
are all young: Dick Grayson grows up, but Bruce Wayne doesn't grow
older--that's weird. The comics themselves make the issue of characters
aging a central feature (Kitty Pryde, for example), but they also try to
keep characters from aging. That's weird.
> I guess the argument that these characters are for children -- or
mindless
> entertainment -- isn't going to fly among those who would like superhero
comics
> to be high literature.
I'm just going to ignore this for now. I just don't know how to engage the
issue of taking the time, thought, and effort to read and post messages and
develop a conversation simply to make the point that the subject of those
messages and conversations isn't worth thinking about (as an adult).
grant
Bryan J. Maloney
> effect from time to time- generally loosely phrased as "time works
> differently on each of the Earths". The idea doesn't hold up all that
> well-
> it means that at some point it would have been, say, 1975 on Earth-2
> while
> still being 1965 on Earth-One- and there are moments that explicitly
> contradict that. Still, it was out there floating around in some vague
Actually, the way I see this is that it means that Earth-1 was already
using the "floating timeline" of post-Zero Hour, just not explicitly.
Earth-2, on the other hand, had time that operated more like it appears
to operate in our own universe.
> In any case, the Karkull energy is a different explanation for how the
> JSAers managed to age so slowly than the "time runs differently" on the
> two
> Earths explanation- and a better one, really.
However, "time runs differently" seemed to explain how it is that
Earth-2 underwent more changes than did Earth-1. In 1961, Superman was
roughly 29 on Earth-1, Helena Wayne was around 5-7 years old
(presumably) and the Infinitors hadn't even been born. In 1985,
Superman was roughly 29 on Earth-1 and some of the Infinitors were
within a few years of that age, and Helena Wayne was at least as old as
the Superman of Earth-1.
George Grattan
Could be my error- I haven't read much of the strip in any of its
incarnations- but my impression had always been that the role was handed
down from generation to generation- but perhaps, as you say, this has always
already happened.
(And now it's time to go to bed- I just used a well-worn phrase from
post-structuralist theory talking about a guy played by Billy Zane.....)
Bryan J. Maloney
> This still seems equal to having Bugs Bunny grow old and "pass on the
> mantle" of Bugs to some other rabbit. These are cartoon characters.
On Earth-2, Superman retired and passed the mantle to Power Girl.
Batman retired and passed the mantle to Robin. Wonder Woman didn't
explicitly "pass the mantle", but she had retired from most active
adventuring and Fury was carving out a niche for herself as her daughter.
Your "critique" is a non-starter. The principle was successfully
applied to one DC continuity.
Bryan J. Maloney
dannyb...@aol.comnospam (Dan) wrote:
I'd like it to be in "real time", but not necessarily in the
"mainstream" universe. One of the strengths of Earth-2 was that it was
published in a small number of books. This actually gave writers more
freedom to make changes. Likewise, since it was the "other universe",
change was less terrifying for marketing to deal with.
Terence Chua
"Brian Doyle" <brian...@afdigest.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
The story of Ian Karkull and the JSA Adventure the world's not ready to
know about yet was told by Roy Thomas in ALL-STAR SQUADRON Annual #3.
Karkull wanted to influence the future by killing the next ten or so
future US Presidents (how this would change the future was not made
clear). The JSA prevented the assassinations of all of them save one, an
unnamed child Green Lantern was unable to save. When Karkull was finally
defeated, his shadow form discorporated, sending waves of chronal energy
into the JSAers, including at that time non-JSAers Hawkgirl, Starman,
Joan Carter and Lois Lane, who were tagging along.
--
Terence Chua kh...@tim.org
WWW: http://www.khaosworks.org
KhaOS@TinyTIM: telnet://yay.tim.org:5440
"The meek shall inherit the earth. The rest of us will go to the stars."
Terence Chua
George Grattan <gra...@rcn.com> wrote:
>on 2/12/02 9:57 PM, Thomas Galloway at t...@panix.com wrote:
>But Peachy Pet was?! Quite the snub to Mid-Nite....
Peachy Pet wasn't. Mid-Nite could not have possibly been there because
the next issue of ALL-STAR was the one where he first appears as a
non-member seeking the JSA's help against Dr. Elba and it was only after
that that he officially joined the JSA.
This has been recently retconned to show Mid-Nite working with the JSA
just after the events of Annual #3 (DC 2000), but does not contradict
the events as seen in the annual.
>Growing Miraclo dependency, yes? Didn't something go wrong with a dosage in
>the course of the story?
He took a second dose of Miraclo during the course of his adventure
which led to a seizure. Luckily, Starman was on hand to assist, which is
why he (unlike Mid-Nite) turns up as being already a member of the JSA
in the next issue of ALL-STAR.
Grant Enfield
> this has always
> already happened.
> (And now it's time to go to bed- I just used a well-worn phrase from
> post-structuralist theory talking about a guy played by Billy Zane.....)
Lacan a post-structuralist? I don't think you can be post-structuralist and
be friends with Levi-Strauss. . . . ;)
grant
George Grattan
> In article <B88F398E.FA63%gra...@rcn.com>, George Grattan
> <gra...@rcn.com> wrote:
>
>> effect from time to time- generally loosely phrased as "time works
>> differently on each of the Earths". The idea doesn't hold up all that
>> well-
>> it means that at some point it would have been, say, 1975 on Earth-2
>> while
>> still being 1965 on Earth-One- and there are moments that explicitly
>> contradict that. Still, it was out there floating around in some vague
>
> Actually, the way I see this is that it means that Earth-1 was already
> using the "floating timeline" of post-Zero Hour, just not explicitly.
> Earth-2, on the other hand, had time that operated more like it appears
> to operate in our own universe.
Sure- that's essentially the same thing: folks on Earth-One didn't really
age (except younger characters like Robin and Kid Flash, who aged to a
certain point but no further, while their mentors seemed to age even less
than that during the same time span), whereas folks on Earth 2 did- albeit
*really well*. :-) Earth One's infinitely telescoping timeline was
essentially the same thing we've got now for the "modern" DCU characters.
Problem is, the infinitely telescoping timeline looks increasingly ludicrous
when you've got the JSA (tied intextricably to WWII) in the same timeline as
the modern heroes; in the old Earth-One context, it was easy to simply keep
moving Superman's debut as Superboy up through the decades-- the only real
problems came in with the aging sidekicks/non-aging mentors.
>
>> In any case, the Karkull energy is a different explanation for how the
>> JSAers managed to age so slowly than the "time runs differently" on the
>> two
>> Earths explanation- and a better one, really.
>
> However, "time runs differently" seemed to explain how it is that
> Earth-2 underwent more changes than did Earth-1. In 1961, Superman was
> roughly 29 on Earth-1, Helena Wayne was around 5-7 years old
> (presumably) and the Infinitors hadn't even been born. In 1985,
> Superman was roughly 29 on Earth-1 and some of the Infinitors were
> within a few years of that age, and Helena Wayne was at least as old as
> the Superman of Earth-1.
Which seems to be pretty much exactly what you said above about folks aging
on E2 but not on E1; I agree. Had this ever been followed up on completely
and explicitly, it would have had to mean that publication dates in our
world and dates of occurrence on Earth-2 would be more or less the same,
with dates of occurrence on E1 falling ever further behind. Obviously, no
one wanted to keep Earth One in the 70s that long. :-) (Who can blame them?)
That's got nothing to do with the Karkull story, though- which simply
explained how it was possible that the JSAers could be in their 20s in the
1940s and still be as vigorous as they were in their 60s in the 1980s- it
wasn't that they were aging at a different rate from the rest of Earth-2, it
was that that aging had less effect on them due to the chronal energy they'd
received. They aged, just extremely *well*- the same amount of time passed
for them as for everyone else.
Flash Forever
Kevin Gould, in an article which appeared in Amazing Heroes #153 (Nov.
1989), addressed the subject of character aging in comic books.
To quote, "There is no one theory which would fit every character and
every instance in the world of comic books. hat one has to do is find a
few common threads within the fabric of story-telling, and give them a
definition, as well as pointing out the advantages and disadvantages of
these fictional devices."
Gould suggests several alternative methods for dealing with the problem
of character aging. Here's a sumary:
1. The concurrent time method (Or: Hope I die before I get old): "is
perhaps the easiest method to understand, but is used very rarely in
comic books. Using this method, a year in fictional time is equal to a
year (in) real time, with allowances given to continued stories,
frequency of publication and other factors. The best example of a comic
strip using this method is Gasoline Alley, which has all of its
characters aging 'normally' and its main character, Skeezix, aging from
early childhood, to having children and grandchildren of his own."
Gould suggests the following advantages of the concurrent time method:
"Aging characters in a more or less realistic manner makes the character
seem more realistic, and thus, the reader can be interested in the
character's history. There's a bit of added identification to the
character since they are 'growing up' just like the reader."
Gould offers up The Vision and Scarlet Witch mini-series as an example
of a mainstream comic using the concurrent time method.
But Gould states that the disadvantages of the concurrent time method
are "obvious, especially when the character proves to be popular" and
adds that additional problems can occur with this method when specific
dates are used.
"For many years," Gould states, "Legion was set at being exactly 1000
years in the future (except for the few typographical errors which
resulted in Legion being placed in the 21st century...). Fine and dandy
for the first few years, until it becomes painfully obvious that the
series has lasted over 20 years, and some who joined as teenagers in the
'60s are still in their early 20s in the 80s."
2. The distorted time method --compressed and/or expanded time (Or:
Mickey's big hand is broken): "is found where time for a character moves
faster or slower than real time, at different ratios depending on the
author's discretion. One of the sub-categories of this method is the
compressed time method, where time moves faster on the fictional world
than it does in our world."
Advantages: Gould suggests most advantages of this method appear when it
is compared to the concurrent time method. "One does not have to keep
reinventing the wheel and have to come up with an answer every 10 years
to explain why each character doesn't look 10 years older."
Useage of this method, Gould points out, could explain inconsitencies
such as Reed Richards fighting in WWII, the Thing and the Human Torch
meeting the Beatles, etc. (This is assuming, of course, that these
events were not removed due to ret-con.)
"The compressed time method," Gould suggests, "allows the reader to
figure out some kind of ratio for each character, and allows them to age
gradually, though slower than in real time. It also aids in the
ever-popular suspension of disbelif, by reducing historial revisions
which are necessary in other methods. It does this by accepting
everything which has happened with the character as 'truth' but just in
a world which has a faster time line."
Gould does suggest some problems with this method, however, such as
"this method makes it difficult to establish the type of chronologies
found in the various Official Indexes to Marvel Comics" and "comic book
time begins only when a character makes his or her first
appearance...the 1960s and 1970s were a tiny fraction of Peter Parker's
life, while not-yet introduced characers like Dazzler or Nova went from
babies to adulthood...thus the compressed time method is a bit
inconsistent in itself. In this instance, Spider-Man is in a compressed
time line, while Dazzler is in a concurrent time line, until she makes
her first appearance, when she begins living in compressed time, so she
does not age faster than the other characters she may meet."
Gould suggests another sub-category of the distorted time method is "the
expanded time method" where time flows slower on the ficional world than
in the real world. He points out that this method is most often found in
stories from the past--most notably stories from WWII. He cites, as an
example, Roy Thomas' practice of "one month of 'real time' circa 1942 to
one year of 'comic book time' circa 1942" for All-Star Squadron.
Problems can arise here when one compares the respective ages of
characters who have met during a set time span. "...for a while it was
established that Reed Richards met Sgt. Furing during WWII but this was
later disregarded, because it would have meant Reed Richards, who would
have been (for an example, 21 in 1944, would have to be at least 66 in
1989."
3. The editorial aging method (Or: 25 or 6 to 4): "is a seemingly easy
answer to the problem." Using this method, Gould states, "a character
ages (or de-ages) through the decision of the writer or the editor."
As an example, Gould points to Superboy #171, where then-editor Murray
Boltinoff devotes a full-page explanation (this is, of course, prior to
the Superman ret-con which removed the original Superboy from accepted
continuty):
"If SuperMAN is now 29 (circa late 80s, I believe) years old...SuberBOY
had to be in his teens between 1951 and 1957. But...from now on, he'll
tag along behind the eternally 29-year-old Superman...and 'stay with it'
as the years roll on."
Gould suggests the following advantages to this method: "A writer can
place the character in situations more relevant to 'today' than if the
character lived in the more distant past. This method allows a writer to
side-step any continuity problems such as 'How were both SuperMAN and
SuperBOY able to perform a mission for President Kennedy?'
Gould points out that one person who practiced "editoral aging" was John
Byrne. In the late 80s, Byrne said, "We've sort of developed this
seven-year thing, that it's been seven years since the origin of the
Fantasitic Four. Johnny was 16, and now he's about 23-24....it's a
constant seven years....a sliding scale....it's not a grid....Franklin
is five years old when he should, in fact, be 16."
Gould points out that there is a distinction between this method and the
aforementioned "compressed time" method as the later has a consistency
to it while, with editorial aging, "the editor or writer specifically
indicates, either by editorial comment or implication, when the story is
set, and how old the characters are."
The disadvantage to editorial aging: long-term readers. Gould points out
that this method can confuse, even anger, long-time fans of an ongoing
series.
As an example, he cites X-Men #138, where Jean Grey's tombstone is
inscribed with the dates "1956-1980" which would indicate that Jean was
23 or 24 at the time of her death. "Unfortunately," Gould points out,
"the long time comic book fan realizes she made her first appearance in
X-Men #1, cover dated Sept. 1963. Accordingly, she would have been 6 or
7, but she looked 10 to 12 years older."
A possible alternative of giving her birth date as 1946, Gould states,
would have made her 33 or 34 at the time of her death, an age a bit
older than her appearance.
4. The divergent aging method (Or: Two different worlds): "An extension
of Mark Gruenwald's Omniversal Theory, and a method just to the left of
editorial aging."
Using this method, "a character becomes younger because comic book
stories featuring this character have switched their focus to a parallel
Earth."
Sound familiar? :)
Gould gives a for instance, "unbeknownst to anyone reading them, the
adventures of Superman and Batman in the 30s through the 50s were those
of the Superman and Batman of Earth-2 to Earth-1. Accordingly, Earth-2
characters were able to age 'naturually' while the younger Earth-1
versions could age slower."
Gould suggests that this method could also be called "retroactive aging"
as it wasn't planned from the beginning but rather later incorporated
into comic book continuity.
"The different Earths concept came about," Gould writes, "as a logical
extension of Flash #123, where the Earth-1 Flash met the Earth-2 Flash.
Similarly, Black Canary was retroactively de-aged by making her the
long-forgotten daughter of the original Black Canary in JLA #220."
Gould suggests that the advantage of this method is that it provides "a
logical explanation to a character's not showing signs of aging....and
it provides an 'attic' in which one can store old time favorites to be
used in future stories."
He does point out a few disadvantages, such as the problem with
pinpointing exactly when the switch from Earth-2 to Earth-1 occurred,
since there wasn't a lot of difference between the two versions when
they switched viewpoints.
"There's also the trouble inherent in the omniversal theory, where every
inconsistency can be attributed to a parallel earth." In theory, anyway.
Gould does point out that DCs' Crisis pretty much wiped out the
omniversal method. (And that was in '89. It's 2002 and there's still no
sign of its return to popular useage.)
5. The comparative time method (Or: It's the time of the season): This
method says, "that on different worlds (or dimensions, or strange lands)
time flows differently. Thus, a character would age at a different rate
if they spend time in this foreign area."
The comparative time method occurred in the land of Skataris, in the
Warlord series. Another example of this might be the alternate dimension
featured in X-Men and Majik.
6. The extended life method (Or: Slow down, you move too fast): "A
character doesn't age as fast or slow as normal people do, through the
use of a youth serum, an alien physiognomy, or through special powers
that retard aging."
Riddle me this Batman: What do (the original) Krypto the Superdog, Nick
Fury and the Fantastic Four all have in common? A: Youth serums! All
were exposed to some type of youth serum.
Examples of the extended life method can be found in abundance in comics
and, as Gould points out, there are some who have an expanded life span
due to their special powers.
Ret-cons notwithstanding, according to Byrne in X-Men Companion II:
"it's Wolverine's regenerative powers that keep him looking youg, even
though he's 60, and that he's aging very slowly." Moreover, according to
Gould, "(Wolverine's) father, Sabretooth, also has regeneration powers
and is 120 years old."
There are also those characters who have had their lives "put on hold"
thus allowing them to live in two different eras. An example of this is
Captain America, who was frozen in a block of ice from the WWII era
until 1961.
Gould also points to Mon-El of LSH fame. Years in suspeded animation in
space plus 1000+ years spent in the Phantom Zone would've made him,
technically, more than 1035 years old, but he still appeared to be 24 or
25 in the Legion comic.
7. The suspended aging method (Or: Time in a bottle): This is when a
character does not age at all and there is no appearance of aging or
physical change. This method is mostly used in comic strips such as
Charlie Brown or to comic characters who exist in fictional worlds which
are non-realistic. (Yes, *more* non-realistic than your typical
mainstream comic.)
8. The selective method. (Or: I am my own grandpa): This method is where
"an author has two or more characters meet, without an explanation as to
why there is a discrepancy."
As an example, Gould points to Brave and the Bold #181 where Batman is
teamed with the Hawk and the Dove. H&D, formerly a part of the Teen
Titans, have aged 12 years since their last appearances, appearing to be
in their late 20s to early 30s. "But Dick Grayson, supposedly the same
age as the Hawk and the Dove, is still in his early 20s (and still in
the Teen Titans). Add to this Batman, who hasn't seemed to age more than
a few years at best during the last two or three decades."
Finally, Gould suggests some other possible methods of aging not used in
comics:
A) Those who are born with or gain superpowers somehow affect the aging
of those around them.
B) In the world of comic books, everyone has an expanded life span.
Instead of a life expectancy of 75 years or so, they have a life
expectancy of over 100 years, and characters lok as good at 45 as we do
at 25.
Gould admits that there are several problems inherent to both of these
methods, however.
I thought these exceprts from Mr. Gould's excellent article might add to
the ongoing discussion here concenring comic book aging but man, was
that a lot of typing. (Please excuse typos and spelling errors.) I'm
really tired now. Not as young as I used to be you know! I'm going to go
rest my fingers and then I'm going to look for some of that youth serum
stuff. If it's good enough for Krypto then it's good enough for me. :)
Bob G. Bob Roland
Bravo.
You are, of course, quite correct. What's odd is that the characters
some people try so desperatly to hang on to are characters that were
once handed down to them from older readers. Imagine if the the kids
in the forties had the internet back then. :)
Bob
Duggy
> I'd like it to be in "real time", but not necessarily in the
> "mainstream" universe. One of the strengths of Earth-2 was that it was
> published in a small number of books. This actually gave writers more
> freedom to make changes. Likewise, since it was the "other universe",
> change was less terrifying for marketing to deal with.
As I've said before... a side universe... with Hal, Ollie, Barry,
Aquaman, Batman, Superman, and WW... 4 or 5 titles... realtime (or
close two)
Perfection.
---
- Dug.
---
John B 821
aaro...@aol.combizarro (Aaron Mojo Hazouri or Bizarro No 1 ) writes:
> This still seems equal to having Bugs Bunny grow old and "pass on the
>mantle" of Bugs to some other rabbit. These are cartoon characters.
That was the concept behind Tiny Toons - the WB classic characters
training a new generation.
Bryan J. Maloney
<gra...@rcn.com> wrote:
> Which seems to be pretty much exactly what you said above about folks
> aging
> on E2 but not on E1; I agree. Had this ever been followed up on
> completely
> and explicitly, it would have had to mean that publication dates in our
> world and dates of occurrence on Earth-2 would be more or less the same,
> with dates of occurrence on E1 falling ever further behind. Obviously, no
> one wanted to keep Earth One in the 70s that long. :-) (Who can blame
> them?)
This isn't quite what I'm getting at. What I'm saying is that time on
Earth-1 was "not cumulative". That is, while the date advanced and
today always follows yesterday, some time after yesterday becomes last
month, which becomes last year, time sort of "turns into oatmeal", with
no distinct "past" as we understand it until one gets back more than a
pair of generations from the "present", at which point things are
"fixed" again.
Anthony Dean
Flash Forever <flashf...@webtv.net> wrote:
> As an example, Gould points to Superboy #171, where then-editor Murray
> Boltinoff devotes a full-page explanation (this is, of course, prior to
> the Superman ret-con which removed the original Superboy from accepted
> continuty):
>
> "If SuperMAN is now 29 (circa late 80s, I believe) years old...SuberBOY
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Actually, the original editor's quote was printed around 1970, and
thus, backtracked Superboy's era from that point/Superman's then-age of
29 (not from the late 80's backwards...since by the 80's, they'd moved
Superboy up to the sixties). I understand the story in question
involves seeing Superboy explicitly shown as returning from some
time-travel-related adventure to his then-home time of 1955 (vs. the
thirties)...
> had to be in his teens between 1951 and 1957. But...from now on, he'll
> tag along behind the eternally 29-year-old Superman...and 'stay with it'
> as the years roll on."
Anthony
--
"I forgot my wallet!! *Currrrses*...."
--- Mojo Jojo en route to the supermarket, "The Powerpuff Girls"
Scott Bierworth
and the multiverse returned at the same time. This should make the people
who want the return of the multiverse and the people who want real-time
aging happy.
The clever plan DC has come up with to address these two issues is that
starting this year, the January 2002 cover date books took place on
Earth-101, the February 2002 books took place on Earth-102, the March 2002
books are set on Earth-103. This pattern continues to infinity. The clever
part is that the history of each Earth is almost identical in every way with
the previous Earth. The only noticeable difference is that on, for example,
Earth-101, Superman first appeared in June, 1989. On Earth-102 he first
appeared in July, 1989. Earth-103 had his first appearance in August, 1989,
etc. Now they all age in real time, so by next January the Superman of
Earth-101 will be a year older! Of course, by then they'll be showing the
adventures of Earth-113.
Glenn Simpson
be the "main" universe. I'd love "Earth A" (ageing), but "Earth S"
(for stagnant) would always be considered mainstream, and there would
be a lot of good stories told there that wouldn't be a part of my
"preferred" universe. I guess I don't see a need for "Earth S".
Don't mind me, though - I'm a wacko.
Flash Forever
<<Actually, the original editor's quote was printed around 1970, and
thus, backtracked Superboy's era from that point/Superman's then-age of
29 (not from the late 80's backwards...since by the 80's, they'd moved
Superboy up to the sixties). I understand the story in question involves
seeing Superboy explicitly shown as returning from some
time-travel-related adventure to his then-home time of 1955 (vs. the
on, he'll tag along behind the eternally 29-year-old Superman...and
'stay with it' as the years roll on.">>
Yep. I should've done the math. :)
Gould's article, coincidentally, also addresses the subject of how
traveling in time might impact character aging. He writes:
"When considering the problems of aging in comic books, one must also
consider the consequences of traveling in time. Does a character age the
number of years he or she is traveling through?
"According to Jay Zibler's 'The Time Paradox Syndrome' (as presented in
Superboy and the Legion of Super-Heroes #237), the character will only
biologically age the amount of time he or she spends in the future (or
past.) This is what Zilber calls the Fixed-Time-Link.
"One exception to this can be found in the three-part story in Action
#835 through 387. Superman travels 100,000 years into the future, and
finds out he has aged a corresponding amount of years, due to a
defective time bubble. Unable to travel into the past, Superman travels
so far into the future that he relives all of the events of his life, up
to the point after he enters the time bubble." I suppose the implication
here is that time is somehow circular rather than linear.
Gould also pointed to a now-forgotten rationalization for the slow aging
of the Legion of Super-Heroes, presented in SB&TLOSH #235:
"The Legion tells Superboy a lie about why they erase his memories of
his adventures (with) the Legion. They are trying to protect the secret
of the serum of Dr. B'relden, a serum (possibly a form of synthesized
Rejuvium, sen in Adventure #335) which extends life "for centuries,"
explaining why some Legionnaires are called "boy" or "kid" when they are
in their late teens or early 20s."
But Gould points out that, "this is not quite a satisfying answer to the
problem" (because) "If, according to the 'Fixed-Time-Link' theory,
Superboy returns to the same date in the future (or around 1020 years
from his own 'present') whey doesn't he realize he is aging faster than
they are? or this reason, this tale seems to have fallen into the
apocryphal story category."
Terence Chua
flashf...@webtv.net (Flash Forever) wrote:
>But Gould points out that, "this is not quite a satisfying answer to the
>problem" (because) "If, according to the 'Fixed-Time-Link' theory,
>Superboy returns to the same date in the future (or around 1020 years
>from his own 'present') whey doesn't he realize he is aging faster than
>they are? or this reason, this tale seems to have fallen into the
>apocryphal story category."
Actually, it's been forgotten because it's a friggin' stupid story, and
often crops up in Legion "Worst of" lists. Not Paul Levitz's finest hour.
Dan
>From: Paul....@jcu.edu.au (Duggy)
>Date: 2/12/02 8:56 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <607b1d7a.02021...@posting.google.com>
>> >From: gls36...@yahoo.com (Glenn Simpson)
>> >Date: 2/12/02 2:14 PM Eastern Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <1287ea8f.02021...@posting.google.com>
>>
>> >As a long-time proponent of the "let them age" theory, I'd sorta
>> >agree, although I don't see any need to keep the "non-aging" universe.
>>
>> I also think there should be an "aging universe". I think that was one of
>the
>> reasons I so enjoyed Infinity, Inc. It was the old generation passing on
>the
>time",
>> but the floating 7-10 years is just stupid.
>
>12.
Still stupid. The further we get from WWII and *still* have them with
20-something children, the stupider it gets.
Dan
aa #1617
George Grattan
Oh, man- I was more tired than I thought last night....
How bout this: comic book aging generally operates along principles Frederic
Jameson would have recognized-- late capitalism producing not so much things
themselves but rather an ever proliferating series of images of the thing,
so that desire is always both sated and deferred.
Better? :-)
George Grattan
Yeah- that's what *I* meant by the term "infinitely telescoping"--or
infinitely compressing-- years become months, months become weeks, weeks
become some indeterminate general period called, simply "the past" in the
Earth-One context, and in today's context, as well. Earth-2 time worked more
like our own, actual experience of time, though it wasn't a 1:1 ratio.
I think we're on the same page here, though- just using different color ink.
:-)
Thomas Galloway
George Grattan <gra...@rcn.com> wrote:
>> Does the Phantom age? I'd always thought it was the same Phantom, unaging,
>> starring in the "present" of the script, and all of the old Phantoms were
>> all created as already being retired.
>Could be my error- I haven't read much of the strip in any of its
>incarnations- but my impression had always been that the role was handed
>down from generation to generation- but perhaps, as you say, this has always
>already happened.
As far as I know, the present Kit Walker* is the only one who's starred in
the newspaper strip since it debuted in 1936 (there was a tv series, and
I believe some spinoff comics, set in 2040 or so which had a few generations
down the line starring). His twins are up to around 12 or so, so it wouldn't
take much to age them up to where Kit the boy could take over the role (I
do wonder whether Heloise will end up being the second female Phantom in
some way).
* For the Ghost Who Walks
tyg t...@Panix.com
Johanna Draper Carlson
> He's all reprints, as it were.
How do the new Looney Tunes stories fit with this?
I don't think they matter -- they're new episodes using the same character.
The only one that's significant is the one they did for #75, I think it was,
where a ton of old supporting characters show up.
> Superhero comics, on the other hand, exist in a serial world where
> individual issues may not rely on earlier issues, but they understand that
> there *are* earlier issues.
How do the Superman and Batman Adventures fit into your paradigm? Remember,
the Marvel-style soap-opera superhero story is a mutation of the core genre,
which is itself a limited branch of the science fiction comic.
> I'll add too that comics have had characters age, but the characters who age
> are all young: Dick Grayson grows up, but Bruce Wayne doesn't grow
> older--that's weird.
Sitcoms do the same thing, though. The kids age; the parents try to keep
looking the same.
Johanna Draper Carlson joh...@comicsworthreading.com
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
Grant Enfield
"Johanna Draper Carlson" <joh...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote in message
news:B892D90D.5F53A%joh...@comicsworthreading.com...
> > He's all reprints, as it were.
>
> How do the new Looney Tunes stories fit with this?
There are new Bugs Bunny films?
I did not know that. :)
> > Superhero comics, on the other hand, exist in a serial world where
> > individual issues may not rely on earlier issues, but they understand
that
> > there *are* earlier issues.
>
> How do the Superman and Batman Adventures fit into your paradigm?
I think that they're examples of stories that don't *rely* on their having
some relationship to earlier stories but are *aware* of earlier stories.
For example, the Peanuts comic strip appeared more than once, but nothing
that happened in other strips affects what happens in any other strip (don't
count characters' first appearances as events that influence others--count
that it's not that Lucy has pulled the football away from Charlie Brown on
previous, discrete occasions but that Lucy *always* pulls the football away
from Charlie Brown). On the other hand, Calvin and Hobbes daily strips often
presented a sequence of strips (Calvin eats the cereal to order the beanie,
Calvin orders the beanie, Calvin waits for the beanie, Calvin gets the
beanie, Calvin and Hobbes play with the box it came in), but each strip is
entirely self-contained--none (or very few) rely on the strips before, but
often they're aware of the strips before.
(I happen to think that the Adventures senses of continuity are lots like
Calvin and Hobbes's: things happen in order, but neither Calvin nor Batman
ever gets any older. Both are set in universes that map only indirectly onto
the real world: Calvin's parents don't drive a recognizable make of car, and
their phone has a rotary dial, for example; the Adventures worlds are also
stylistically distinct from the "real" world. I think those things lend a
sort of timeless feel to them both, but the regular DC and Marvel Universes
often establish specific points of connection to their readers' world.)
> Sitcoms do the same thing, though. The kids age; the parents try to keep
> looking the same.
I don't think that's any more true than it is in the real world. ;)
I do think that TV shows that know they're going to have to deal with child
actors aging in unexpected ways often deliberately avoid specifying what
ages the children are; they may start they next grade in school, but viewers
don't get told what grade that it exactly.
Sitcoms also inhabit funny universes--and the rules are different there.
(Injuries may be serious but never life-threatening, for example.)
grant
Johanna Draper Carlson
>
> There are new Bugs Bunny films?
Don't the comics count?
> (I happen to think that the Adventures senses of continuity are lots like
> Calvin and Hobbes's: things happen in order, but neither Calvin nor Batman
> ever gets any older.
I agree, and I think they're truest to the roots of the superhero genre that
way.
Jay and Diane Rudin
> >> How do the new Looney Tunes stories fit with this?
> >
> > There are new Bugs Bunny films?
>
> Don't the comics count?
Cartoons have always had the same kind of continuity as Commedia dell'Arte.
The characters stay the same characters, even though their history changes
in each cartoon/ play. Thus, Arlecchino may be Pantalone's servant, or Il
Capitano's, or Lelio's, but the characters of Arlecchino, Pantalone, Il
Capitano and Lelio are constant. In the same way, Mickey might be a
steamboat pilot, clock cleaner, medieval tailor, or band director, but he's
always Mickey.
Bugs has lived in modern cities, farms, countryside, desert islands,
medieval castles, and Arabic sands, but he's always Bugs. Yosemite Sam has
been seen on a pirate ship, riding a dragon in medieval times, and in modern
citeis, but he stays a cowboy outlaw.
(I admit that, in the comics, character retcons bother me a lot more than
plot retcons.)
Jay Rudin
Grant Enfield
"Johanna Draper Carlson" <joh...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote in message
news:B893CA71.5F634%joh...@comicsworthreading.com...
> > There are new Bugs Bunny films?
>
> Don't the comics count?
There are Bugs Bunny comics?
> > (I happen to think that the Adventures senses of continuity are lots
like
> > Calvin and Hobbes's: things happen in order, but neither Calvin nor
Batman
> > ever gets any older.
>
> I agree, and I think they're truest to the roots of the superhero genre
that
> way.
But I think the element that allows for that is an internal stylistic
consistency that obviously separates the Adventures books, the Calvin and
Hobbes strip, or even Bugs Bunny or Roadrunner films from the "real world."
grant
Johanna Draper Carlson
> There are Bugs Bunny comics?
Looney Tunes, published every month, has new stories with the classic
characters -- Bugs, Daffy, Sylvester, etc.
> But I think the element that allows for that is an internal stylistic
> consistency that obviously separates the Adventures books, the Calvin and
> Hobbes strip, or even Bugs Bunny or Roadrunner films from the "real world."
Could you elaborate on what you mean? I'm still not getting where you're
going.
Dave Doty
> Looney Tunes, published every month, has new stories with the classic
> characters -- Bugs, Daffy, Sylvester, etc.
I haven't read them. Do they really attempt to age Bugs, or are there
essentially two Bugs: one who stars in stories, and is the same as he ever
was, and another, older, version who shows up in the stories about the
kids? Sort of the Spider-Girl loophole to avoid aging?
Dave Doty
Paul "Duggy" Duggan
>> But I think the element that allows for that is an internal stylistic
>> consistency that obviously separates the Adventures books, the Calvin and
>> Hobbes strip, or even Bugs Bunny or Roadrunner films from the "real world."
>Could you elaborate on what you mean? I'm still not getting where you're
>going.
Superheroes live in a quasi-real world. Events, fashion and technology
are similar to those in what is deemed the real world. While it is true
that neither cartoon-funnies or super-heroes are mimetic literature, you
have to admit that cartoon-funnies have less connection with the real
world.
---
- Dug.
---
"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you
give it to them? Then do not be to eager to deal out death in
judgement. For even the wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf.
---
Johanna Draper Carlson
> Do they really attempt to age Bugs, or are there
> essentially two Bugs: one who stars in stories, and is the same as he ever
> was, and another, older, version who shows up in the stories about the
> kids?
Neither. The Looney Tunes comics that I've seen (with the one exception that
I mentioned earlier) are simply new Bugs Bunny stories. The Tiny Toons kids
have never shown up in the comics that I've seen.
I brought it up only to say that even though new Bugs Bunny stories do
exist, it's still possible to leave him ageless.
BradW8
>> characters -- Bugs, Daffy, Sylvester, etc.
>I haven't read them. Do they really attempt to age Bugs, or are there
>essentially two Bugs: one who stars in stories, and is the same as he ever
>was, and another, older, version who shows up in the stories about the
>kids? Sort of the Spider-Girl loophole to avoid aging?
There's a whole article here about the WB characters past and present in comic
books. During the Dell years there was a lot of pressure to grab rack space,
and to that end Dell spun off as many titles as they could. So you had Bugs
Bunny, Daffy Duck, Porky Pig, even Elmer Fudd. Beep Beep the Road Runner
changed the most from his cartoon roots. They hardly even tried with Pepe le
Pew. All stories were put through the Dell "process" (although I doubt it was
as formal as that) and conform to kiddy lit standards over the anarchy of the
film cartoons.
And now it's the present and instead of 10-to-20 titles the WB characters are
down to one: An anthology title which lets DC use different characters every
time. The pressure now is to make the stories as much like the cartoons as
possible. Beep Beep no longer rhymes, for example.
As to age, I suppose you could use the Tiny Toons explanation that laughter
keeps toons young.
Grant Enfield
"Paul "Duggy" Duggan" <jc12...@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.4.21.02021...@marlin.jcu.edu.au...
> Superheroes live in a quasi-real world. Events, fashion and technology
> are similar to those in what is deemed the real world. While it is true
> that neither cartoon-funnies or super-heroes are mimetic literature, you
> have to admit that cartoon-funnies have less connection with the real
> world.
I think Paul hits what I was getting at pretty closely here. Nevertheless,
I'll elaborate. :)
Both Adventures books have a stylistic "language" that's both easily
readable (when you see a car or a telephone or a gun, you know what it is)
and clearly distinct from the "real world" (while you see a car or a
telephone or a gun, you don't see any real, contemporary make or model of
car, telephone, or gun). What's more, you don't see a "knock-off" of a
real-world car, telephone, or gun either; instead you see a make and model
of car or telephone or gun that generally belongs to the whole design
sensibility of the Adventures worlds (distinct enough that a Metropolis car
would look out of place in Gotham).
You add to that distinctive style or design sensibility a deliberately fuzzy
sense of time (characters don't seem to have specific ages, and specific
calendar years and that sort of thing aren't referred to, and those things
are compounded by the "retro" designs the books use--Gotham Adventures is
the future of the 1940s and Superman Adventures seems to be the future of
the 1950s or early 1960s), and you have a world where time doesn't really
seem to pass.
The same thing works in both Peanuts and Calvin and Hobbes. Their worlds are
analogous to the real world, but clearly distinct from it. And both Charlie
Brown and Calvin start the same grade in school every fall, every year.
It's not *just* the cartoony art though. Amelia Rules provides a good
example of a cartoony sense of design that seems to exist in a world that's
parallel to the real world (at least). Amelia establishes that with specific
ages of characters and cultural references (Tanner is a Replacements fan,
for example, and for that to mean what it means, there has to be a much
stronger correlation between her world and ours than either Charlie Brown,
Calvin, or the Animated Batman or Superman have).
Does that help some?
grant
Johanna Draper Carlson
Jason Petty
<snip>
> I thought the initial concept of Earth-1 / Earth-2 was a good comic
> book logic way for dealing with this issue. Of course, it was
> forgotten that time on Earth-2 ran slower than time on Earth-1, so the
> Earth-1 70's was in parallel with the Earth-2 50's (or was it time ran
> at the same pace, but Earth-2 was just 20 years behind Earth-1?)
Except I seem to remember that in the revival of All Star Comics (and
later in stories like the Huntress back-up in WW etc.) that Earth-2
wasn't twenty years behind. One image that sticks in my head is that
length of Alan's secretary's skirt was far more in keeping with 1970s
fashions than with the 1950s.
Bryan Maloney
news:9a68c8ec.0202...@posting.google.com:
The "contemporary" stories of Earth-2 were set in the same year as the year
of publication.
Jay and Diane Rudin
> > Except I seem to remember that in the revival of All Star Comics (and
> > later in stories like the Huntress back-up in WW etc.) that Earth-2
> > wasn't twenty years behind. One image that sticks in my head is that
> > length of Alan's secretary's skirt was far more in keeping with 1970s
> > fashions than with the 1950s.
Don't make any assumptions from this. Comics artists are about as good at
keeping up with fashion trends as comics fans.
> The "contemporary" stories of Earth-2 were set in the same year as the
year
> of publication.
Exactly. In "Flash of Two Worlds", it was established that 1949 was the
same year in both worlds (the Flash comic book of Earth-1 was cancelled the
same year that the Earth-2 retired. The Crisis stories (the real ones, not
the 80s mini-series) discussed the fact that the JSA had been inactive and
came back out of retirement in the 60s.
Jay Rudin
BHMarks
JSA. It's not a popular one.
I think the JSA should have been allowed to age, retire, and die. (Or, go out
in a heroic blaze of glory that respects the character.) And been replaced by
younger characters who in some cases had connections to the old characters, but
not the history and the baggage.
My reasons are not entirely connected to continuity, although I am a big
continuity fan. It has more to do with the nature of stories. Someone on this
thread said "every myth has to have a beginning." Well, in a lot of cases they
have ends, too. And they should be allowed to.
I understand that Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman are considered too
valuable - as "properties" - to be allowed to retire and be replaced by their
children or sidekicks. And I suspect that's probably true.
But I *don't* believe that the Carter Hall Hawkman is so intrinsically valuable
as a property - compared say, to a modern-day grandnephew who inherits his
wings and calls himself "Hawkman" - that it's worth the unlikely, unconvincing,
deus ex machina storylines necessary to de-age Carter. To me, these stories
weigh down Hawkman more than gravity ever could.
I would far prefer to see Carter and Shiera Hall as aged former superheroes
living on a mountaintop, perhaps acting as spiritual gurus to flying youngsters
(the Golden eagle et al), than what we're getting now (as well-written and
well-drawn as it may be). It would allow them to truly change, to have a new
role, and ultimately to have an end to their story. Someone else can be
Hawkman.
After all, look at the shift from the Golden Age to the Silver Age. Someone
else got to be Green Lantern. New name, new secret-ID job, new supporting
cast, new origin, new backstory. Sold like hotcakes. (Fortunately nobody saw
the need to turn Alan Scott into a crazed murderer to do it.) And, although
the GA Green Lantern did eventually appear in some SA GL stories, he wasn't
necessary to the new series' success.
Of course, I might be wrong. It may be that the current miniscule readership
is so into nostalgia that only the "original item" will do. Accept no
substitutes. Certainly the return of Oliver Queen, after the failure of Connor
Hawke's series, suggests this as the popular wisdom. Maybe new characters just
can't work anymore. But I would like to believe that, with really good writing
and art, they can.
None of this is meant to imply that I don't like the JSA, or would never like
to see a story about any of them again. I just think they should be set in
their proper time periods. Stories of JSA members in the 1940's and '50's;
stories of Infinity Inc. in the 1970's - there's a lot of open space there.
This is what I would have preferred to see post-Crisis: 3 different DC lines.
The Golden Line, for JSA and II stories. The Silver Line, for Teen Titans and
LSH stories. And the Plum Line, for a new Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman,
and a new DCU with no history, to evolve on its own. And very little
interaction between them.
A fan can dream....
As for the ends of stories: I think Neil Gaiman gave Fury I a perfectly
appropriate ending in The Sandman, and I *don't* think her storyline or
character have been the least bit improved by de-aging and re-powering her and
making her crazy and violent. There are lots of stories to tell about her, but
the most interesting ones might have been set in an earlier time. And Fury II
could be left alone in Vertigo-land, too. After all, we know very little about
the circumstances of her birth; she could have a younger sister or niece to be
the current-day Fury.
Unless driven by financial necessities, would it be so terrible to let some of
these myths have an ending?
As ever,
Bennet
Johanna Draper Carlson
> It has more to do with the nature of stories. Someone on this
> thread said "every myth has to have a beginning." Well, in a lot of cases
> they have ends, too. And they should be allowed to.
Clap, clap, clap. Great point.
It's not just comics, though -- writing a good ending is becoming a lost art
in movies and books, too.
> Of course, I might be wrong. It may be that the current miniscule readership
> is so into nostalgia that only the "original item" will do.
Is it the readership, the creators, or both who are so caught up in trying
to recreate an earlier experience?
George Grattan
> I have a different view on character aging, and in particular the aging of the
> JSA. It's not a popular one.
>
> I think the JSA should have been allowed to age, retire, and die. (Or, go out
> in a heroic blaze of glory that respects the character.) And been replaced by
> younger characters who in some cases had connections to the old characters,
> but
> not the history and the baggage.
>
Welcome back, Bennet- this place has been poorer for your absence.
I tend to agree with you regarding the options that could have/should have
been pursued re: the JSA particularly. I suppose I split the hair a bit,
though (as you can see in the "Power Girl and the JSA" thread) by feeling
that *if* (as seems to be the case) DC has decided to keep telling stories
about the original JSAers and characters depicted as their first-generation
descendants (of one kind or another), then those stories demand some kind of
narrative explanation for their retarded aging and prolonged reproductive
capabilities.
But had that decision not been made- and I agree with you that it shouldn't
have been- it would be satisfying, indeed to she the JSAers and associated
GA characters have their stories come to actual, satisfying conclusions.
Thomas tried to do this, to an extent, in "Last Days of the JSA"- but
clearly the editorial minds weren't wholly made up as to whether to put the
JSA *permanently* beyond use in current day stories (as if anything is
permanent in this genre) or whether to keep the option open. The option was
kept open, of course, and that's understandable, too. But I wish the edict
had been: "If you want to tell new stories about the JSA, set them in the
40s or early 50s."
There was something satisfying about that Ragnarok story- even though I
wasn't thrilled about the fact that these characters would be in a war for
all eternity- it gave them an ending that was mythic, linked to their
beginnings (Hitler and WWII), and wholly in character. The coming years will
see the anniversaries of the end of WWII and, a bit later, of comics' GA-
perhaps that might be a fit time to usher Jay, Alan, Carter, Sheira (such as
she is), Ted, and any others still around into the great hereafter and leave
them there, respectfully.
But endings have a way of not lasting in this genre, even, unfortunately,
the great ones: Jean Grey's, Miller's first Dark Knight, Aunt May.
Kevin J. Maroney
>I would far prefer to see Carter and Shiera Hall as aged former superheroes
>living on a mountaintop, perhaps acting as spiritual gurus to flying youngsters
>(the Golden eagle et al), than what we're getting now (as well-written and
>well-drawn as it may be).
This, of course, is exactly what was done with Kent and Inza in the
1980s. I can't remember how it was undone, but I'm pretty sure it was.
Some people--and here I'm referring to both comics readers and comics
creators--don't seem to be able to let go of old characters.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com
Games are my entire waking life.