Hypertime detractors admit mistake; realize Hypertime's not as big a problem as Y2K, or learning to tie their own shoes!
CATA79
:)
HYPERTIME--YOUR UNOFFICIAL GUIDE TO THE KINGDOMS OF WONDER!
http://members.aol.com/cata79/hypertime.html NOW WITH MESSAGE BOARD!!!
with your host, Cecil Adkins
The future. . . isn't what it used to be.
Stephen Michael Menendian
Or rather the future *is* what it used to be. Crises repeated.
SM
>
>
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> C'mon, it's a joke...
>
> :)
And in some possible universes, it's funny. <G>
I like the Y2K part though.
But "their their own shoes"?
Hypertyme's about ignoring knots not mastering them.
YMMV.
MMMN.
YHWH.
YHIL.
CIAO.
CATA79
Depends on if you're a glass-half-empty or glass-half-full kinda person...
Mikel Midnight
cat...@aol.comCecil (CATA79) wrote:
> C'mon, it's a joke...
>
> :)
Actually, I have been a Hypertime detractor since day 1, and I have now
changed my mind and support the idea. And it's April 2nd.
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
"She always had a terrific sense of humor" Mikel Midnight
(Valerie Solonas, as described by her mother)
blak...@best.com
__________________________________________________http://www.best.com/~blaklion
Dan McEwen
>
> In article <19990401180056...@ng-cr1.aol.com>,
> cat...@aol.comCecil (CATA79) wrote:
>
> > C'mon, it's a joke...
> >
> > :)
>
> Actually, I have been a Hypertime detractor since day 1, and I have now
> changed my mind and support the idea. And it's April 2nd.
I don't know anyone who out and out opposed hypertime. What people did
oppose was comments made by Mark Waid which were interpreted to mean
that DC history can change from moment to moment. Most didn't mind the
alternate realities.
--
Dan |Baker Baker baking a cake
fe...@lsh.org |make me a day make me whole again
http://home.att.net/~djmcewen/ |and I wonder what's in a day
|what's in your cake this time
http://home.att.net/~djmcewen/depressed.html | - Tori Amos
Radarcom
oppose was comments made by Mark Waid which were interpreted to mean
that DC history can change from moment to moment. Most didn't mind the
alternate realities.>>
Raising my hand (and if I bothered to learn the screennames of the other people
who've opposed it, I'd list them too!)
Radarcom
Depends on if you're a glass-half-empty or glass-half-full kinda person...
>>
Hypertime takes the glass and hurls it across the room in an erratic frenzy.
It then smashes to many pieces. But all of those pieces are TRUE!
And now Doug Henning for Hypertime...
"Spirits of Illusion! Worlds of Wonder!"
Dan McEwen
>
> <<Hypertyme's about ignoring knots not mastering them>>
>
> Depends on if you're a glass-half-empty or glass-half-full kinda person...
> >>
>
> Hypertime takes the glass and hurls it across the room in an erratic frenzy.
> It then smashes to many pieces. But all of those pieces are TRUE!
This is only partly right. Hypertime throws *many* glasses, all of
which are different, across the room in an erratic frenzy. It them
smashes them all to many pieces. Then it takes random pieces and tried
to fit them together, irregardless of whether or not they belong
together. Sometimes the pieces will match up, but other times they
won't. It's those times when the match fails that are problematic.
Michael Doran
<<I don't know anyone who out and out opposed hypertime. What people
did
oppose was comments made by Mark Waid which were interpreted to mean
that DC history can change from moment to moment. Most didn't mind the
alternate realities.>>
Two things here... One, the specific example you site was in instance
where the "historical fact" in question was in of itself a change from
ACTUAL historcial fact.
I've always been slight confused why everyone is so worked up over a
"retcon" of sorts to what was either a retcon or a mistake itself. I
could see if Waid was suggesting changing something that was actually
fact, but c'mon?
I took Waid's comments (not only the specific comments but in context to
his many other comments, along with Morrison's, Carlin's, etc..) not to
suggest that all continuity was now up for grabs, but that from now on,
he thinks writers should concentrate more of looking forward, instead of
spending time trying to patch and mend mistakes that have ALREADY occured.
Keep in mind he used an example of something in the past (published 9
months before his comments - story set 10 years in DC's past)), that in
of itself was retcon or continuity mistake.
He did not offer as an example, "that now this upcoming summer in the
Flash I can have Wally transform into a 7 year old black girl and explain
it by hypertime. "
I did not read his comments as saying, let's pro-actively change
continuity on a dime and use this as the tool, I took it as "maybe we can
use this to explain to the mistakes that will occur on their own anyway,
and to explain inconsistencies in the past, instead of backtracking and
trying to offer more explanations that "make sense".
Somewhere on this board, somebody tried to explain the back story of
Black Canary... to me, hypertime is a reaction against THAT, not the
concept of keeing things conistent from here on in..
Secondly, hasn't ANYONE but me considered the fact that maybe Waid is in
the minority amongst his peers on this one. That maybe even he didn't
mean it to be the major sticking point it has been taken as? That Waid
has the write to express his own opinion without it signaling the end of
western civilization as we know it?
michael
Michael Doran
<<This is only partly right. Hypertime throws *many* glasses, all of
which are different, across the room in an erratic frenzy. It them
smashes them all to many pieces. Then it takes random pieces and tried
to fit them together, irregardless of whether or not they belong together.
Sometimes the pieces will match up, but other times they won't. It's
those times when the match fails that are problematic.>>
IMHO, hypertime is the meta-fictional equivilant of the expressions
"accidents happen", and "don't cry over spilled milk".
It's about understanding that honest accidents happen as opposed to
dwelling on them, trying to glue together the glass, soping up the milk
with and rag, wringing it back into the now leaky glass, and trying to
cover up that it ever happened.
I say just get a new glass and fresh milk....it's going to taste pretty
much the same...But maybe that's just me...
michael
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> I took Waid's comments (not only the specific comments but in context to
> his many other comments, along with Morrison's, Carlin's, etc..) not to
> suggest that all continuity was now up for grabs, but that from now on,
> he thinks writers should concentrate more of looking forward, instead of
> spending time trying to patch and mend mistakes that have ALREADY occured.
Mayhaps, but how could they spend _less_ time at that effort than they
do now?
Waid in practice seems to actually be advocating making new mistakes.
>
> I did not read his comments as saying, let's pro-actively change
> continuity on a dime and use this as the tool,
True, but can you see it as "let's not sweat it when we don't
feel like avoiding mistakes"?
> I took it as "maybe we can
> use this to explain to the mistakes that will occur on their own anyway,
> and to explain inconsistencies in the past, instead of backtracking and
> trying to offer more explanations that "make sense".
OTOH, I think most of us expect mistakes to occur. The past volume is
too
large to avoid it. But contriving a formal explanation that, in advance,
give caveat excuse to any mistake made subsequently? Who's being
protected
here?
>
> Somewhere on this board, somebody tried to explain the back story of
> Black Canary... to me, hypertime is a reaction against THAT, not the
> concept of keeing things conistent from here on in..
"We no longer accept consistancy as a goal." is a valid reation to
"We've
been very unskilled at trying it before." I dunno, seems up there with
"If it's inevitable, lie and back and enjoy it." and the antithesis of
"If
it first you don't succeed."
>
> Secondly, hasn't ANYONE but me considered the fact that maybe Waid is in
> the minority amongst his peers on this one.
Considered it sure. But the vocal members of that group seem mainly to
lament "fannish devotion to excruciating detail" rather than advocate a
consistent view. Most seem to be asking for more creative freedom rather
than more consistant intertwining.
> That maybe even he didn't
> mean it to be the major sticking point it has been taken as?
Perhaps implying that he either didn't put much forrthought into the
ramifications?
> That Waid
> has the write to express his own opinion without it signaling the end of
> western civilization as we know it?
That Doran has the right to make absurd exaggerations? <G>
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> Mikel Midnight wrote:
> >
> > In article <19990401180056...@ng-cr1.aol.com>,
> > cat...@aol.comCecil (CATA79) wrote:
> >
> > > C'mon, it's a joke...
> > >
> > > :)
> >
> > Actually, I have been a Hypertime detractor since day 1, and I have now
> > changed my mind and support the idea. And it's April 2nd.
>
<Raises hand tentatively...>
Um, me....
> What people did
> oppose was comments made by Mark Waid which were interpreted to mean
> that DC history can change from moment to moment. Most didn't mind the
> alternate realities.
IMO, basically correct. What galled me about "Hypertime" specifically
was the slapping of a kewl name on a very old concept and the pretense
that something original was being done.
OTOH, while I don't mind the alternate realities concept (actually I
think I've always loved it), the random history of the week
justification
strikes me as something that could be fun for isolated sci-fantasy
stories
but terribly annoying for supposed serial fiction.
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> <<Hypertyme's about ignoring knots not mastering them>>
>
> Depends on if you're a glass-half-empty or glass-half-full kinda person...
Um, no.
The glass is both.
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> Dan McEwen <fe...@lsh.org> wrote:
>
> IMHO, hypertime is the meta-fictional equivilant of the expressions
> "accidents happen", and "don't cry over spilled milk".
And as such is an elaborate sleight of hand for "Oops, sorry."
It's an editorial embracing of "Never show a weakness."
IMNSHO, a good writer accepts that he is fallible. A cheesy one pawns
off as a minseries an advance blanket protection clause for any faults
he may have later.
>
> It's about understanding that honest accidents happen as opposed to
> dwelling on them, trying to glue together the glass, soping up the milk
> with and rag, wringing it back into the now leaky glass, and trying to
> cover up that it ever happened.
It's about leaving broken glass and rancid milk all over the floor
and saying "Oh, well..."
>
> I say just get a new glass and fresh milk....it's going to taste pretty
> much the same...But maybe that's just me...
I agree halfway with that view. But for the analogy to hold you still
have to
clean up the glass. Maybe you don't need to fix the glass, just discard
it.
But asking us to keep attending a resteraunt that won't sweep its
floors is a little much.
Tom Galloway
For Hypertime, I'd prefer the punchline to the following joke:
A glass contains liquid taking up exactly half its volume.
The pessimist view: The glass is half empty.
The optimist view: The glass is half full.
The engineer's view: The glass is poorly designed as it's twice as big as it
needs to be.
The multiple universe aspect of Hypertime is fine. The Hypertime E-Z-retcon
aspect isn't.
tyg t...@netcom.com
CATA79
<<Um, no.
The glass is both.>>
Which is, of course, the POINT of Hypertime.
Michael Doran
<<And as such is an elaborate sleight of hand for "Oops, sorry.">>
Okay, I can agree with this...
<<It's an editorial embracing of "Never show a weakness.">>
This is where we part... this is not in the spirit of "don't cry of
spilled milk at all..." It isn't "never show a weakness", it's "out
attention is better spent elsewhere..."
<<IMNSHO, a good writer accepts that he is fallible. A cheesy one pawns
off as a minseries an advance blanket protection clause for any faults
he may have later.>>
I'll say it again, I see no evidence to suggest it has or will be used in
this way... IMHO, those who jump to this conclusion are missing the point.
<<It's about leaving broken glass and rancid milk all over the floor and
saying "Oh, well...">>
No, it's about the people who live in the house who must know exactly how
the glass was swept up and how the milk was sponged to be sure both were
done "properly", rather than just accepting that you can walk on the
floor in bare feet without getting cut...
<<I agree halfway with that view. But for the analogy to hold you still
have to
clean up the glass. Maybe you don't need to fix the glass, just discard
it. But asking us to keep attending a resteraunt that won't sweep its
floors is a little much.>>
Again, no one is suggesting the floor won't be clean, it's about not
wasting time explaining the minutiae of the cleaning process....
m. (who suddenly has an urge to buy Mop 'n Glow...)
Michael Doran
<<Mayhaps, but how could they spend _less_ time at that effort than they
>do now?>>
Well, considering what we know of Crisis and Zero Hour, maybe it is best
that they leave those efforts behind for good?
<<Waid in practice seems to actually be advocating making new mistakes.
>>
I honestly don't know how anyone can read that from his comments...
<<True, but can you see it as "let's not sweat it when we don't feel like
avoiding mistakes"?>>
To be honest, no. I don't get any indication that he's advocating a more
lax attitude towards what we know to be current continuity.
<< But contriving a formal explanation that, in advance, give caveat
excuse to any mistake made subsequently? Who's being protected here? >>
Again, perhaps I am blind, I don't see that as the intent. I honestly
can't imagine Mark Waid, Grant Morrison, Tom Peyer, Dan Raspler and the
rest expended that kind of time and energy to draft themselves big
continuity "get out of jail free" card...
<<That maybe even he didn't mean it to be the major sticking point it has
been taken as? >>
>>Perhaps implying that he either didn't put much forrthought into the
ramifications?<<
Perhaps, though I'm not sure you and I would agree as to what those
potential ramificiations are...
<<That Doran has the right to make absurd exaggerations? <G>>>
Purposely so my friend...:)
m.
Dan McEwen
> <<IMNSHO, a good writer accepts that he is fallible. A cheesy one pawns
> off as a minseries an advance blanket protection clause for any faults
> he may have later.>>
>
> I'll say it again, I see no evidence to suggest it has or will be used in
> this way... IMHO, those who jump to this conclusion are missing the point.
Those who jump to this conclusion? Did we all miss Mark Waid's
comments? We didn't just randomly assume hypertime would play fast and
loose with reality. Waid out and out said that such could happen. No
conclusions jumped to there.
> <<It's about leaving broken glass and rancid milk all over the floor and
> saying "Oh, well...">>
>
> No, it's about the people who live in the house who must know exactly how
> the glass was swept up and how the milk was sponged to be sure both were
> done "properly", rather than just accepting that you can walk on the
> floor in bare feet without getting cut...
>
> <<I agree halfway with that view. But for the analogy to hold you still
> have to
> clean up the glass. Maybe you don't need to fix the glass, just discard
> it. But asking us to keep attending a resteraunt that won't sweep its
> floors is a little much.>>
>
> Again, no one is suggesting the floor won't be clean, it's about not
> wasting time explaining the minutiae of the cleaning process....
>
> m. (who suddenly has an urge to buy Mop 'n Glow...)
Ah, but cleaning the floor means doing something. Hypertime is
(potentially) about not cleaning the floor.
Dan McEwen
> Secondly, hasn't ANYONE but me considered the fact that maybe Waid is in
> the minority amongst his peers on this one. That maybe even he didn't
> mean it to be the major sticking point it has been taken as? That Waid
> has the write to express his own opinion without it signaling the end of
> western civilization as we know it?
Since Waid was the one to bring the concept into comics, I don't think
anyone is wrong in considering that he initial take on the subject is
quite valid. Besides, you constantly assume that everyone thinks the
worst will *always* happen. That's not the case. Some of us just see
this as a possible way of denigrating continuity with purpose. No one
says that all, or even most, writers will do this. But Waid is one who
seems all too willing.
Michael Doran
<<Those who jump to this conclusion? Did we all miss Mark Waid's
comments? We didn't just randomly assume hypertime would play fast and
loose with reality. Waid out and out said that such could happen. No
conclusions jumped to there.>>
I'll say it again, Mark Waid SUGGESTED a way to look at a continuity
mistake already made in the past. I never saw Mark Waid suggest hypertime
be used to ignore or alter continuity in the future.
What he SUGGESTED was, instead of asking for an in-story, in-"continuity"
explanation of how people who were dead, suddently weren't, he said let's
let sleeping dogs lie and for those who need to wake them up, here's a
way to do it that ceates as little mess in the BIG PICTURE as possible.
This is a difference I know I'm not and haven't expressed as well as I
would like. To me, there is a clear difference to be drawn between
writer's knowing their history and the background they should, and using
it properly in the future, and writer's not expendng time and energy on
minor infractions already made. I haven't seen anything to suggest that
anyone expect hypertime to change the former expectation.
But errors HAVE been made in the PAST, and errors WILL be made in the
future, even keeping the above ideal in mind and forefront. So instead of
spending time resources and energy trying to reconcile these inevitable
and previously made errors, just keep how and why they were made and
their real repurcussions (or lack thereof) in perspective.
I just don't see anything being any worse than it already is as a result
of hytertime. I mean the one example anyone can site is the Blackhawks
thing, and that is not even a true example. But even giving that to you,
can you think of a less innocuous example with less ramifications of any
real kind that that one.
Maybe Waid chose that example for that very reason. Maybe that was the
point... Let's put this kind of minutiae in perspective and concentrate
on what's really important.
<<Ah, but cleaning the floor means doing something. Hypertime is
(potentially) about not cleaning the floor.>>
No, hypertime (potenially) IS cleaning the floor. Using Mark's
suggestion/example, the dead Blackhawks showing up in JLAYO is now clean.
HOW it got clean and where the pieces and the milk are now just isn't
important when put in perspective.
michael
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
> >do now?>>
>
> Well, considering what we know of Crisis and Zero Hour, maybe it is best
> that they leave those efforts behind for good?
That's what I'm saying. I thought they _had_.
Have there been any serious editorial pushes for such since ZH?
>
> <<Waid in practice seems to actually be advocating making new mistakes.
> >>
>
> I honestly don't know how anyone can read that from his comments...
Combine the comments with what he put on the page and comments from
elsewhere.
RE: Blackhawks.
>
> <<True, but can you see it as "let's not sweat it when we don't feel like
> avoiding mistakes"?>>
>
> To be honest, no. I don't get any indication that he's advocating a more
> lax attitude towards what we know to be current continuity.
See above. He can't advocate a more lax attitude than currently held by
DC. <G>
He can and seems to be advocating a laxer attitde than _previously_ held
though.
>
> << But contriving a formal explanation that, in advance, gives caveat
> excuse to any mistake made subsequently? Who's being protected here? >>
>
> Again, perhaps I am blind, I don't see that as the intent.
It's what he stated, IIRC.
Yes I spun it more negatively, but Hypertyme is given as an _in-story_
way of explaining previous and future contradictions.
Using it to _allow_ intentional contradictions ala what Kesel's doing in
Superboy or what Waid basically did in Kingdom doesn't bug me that much.
But he's pretty much proclaimed that his "new" toy allows _all_ stories
to be true in the "mainstream" context.
> I honestly
> can't imagine Mark Waid, Grant Morrison, Tom Peyer, Dan Raspler and the
> rest expended that kind of time and energy to draft themselves big
> continuity "get out of jail free" card...
Why not?
It's not a complicated or time consuming concept.
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> What he SUGGESTED was, instead of asking for an in-story, in-"continuity"
> explanation of how people who were dead, suddently weren't, he said let's
> let sleeping dogs lie and for those who need to wake them up, here's a
> way to do it that ceates as little mess in the BIG PICTURE as possible.
Can you see how we consider that a paraphrase of "handwave it away"?
Handwaving may be valid, but institutionalizing it as policy?
It's answering every continuity question, _in_advance_, with "Doesn't
matter".
>
> This is a difference I know I'm not and haven't expressed as well as I
> would like. To me, there is a clear difference to be drawn between
> writer's knowing their history and the background they should, and using
> it properly in the future, and writer's not expendng time and energy on
> minor infractions already made.
Sure, but we've already seen that they don't do the former, and
so create situations in which we are left with the latter.
> I haven't seen anything to suggest that
> anyone expect hypertime to change the former expectation.
Have you read the last five years of DC comics?
The former is not a priority.
>
> But errors HAVE been made in the PAST, and errors WILL be made in the
> future, even keeping the above ideal in mind and forefront. So instead of
> spending time resources and energy trying to reconcile these inevitable
> and previously made errors, just keep how and why they were made and
> their real repurcussions (or lack thereof) in perspective.
Exactly. In perspective, it's human error. It doesn't required an
overhyped
kewl concept in-story to justiy.
>
> I just don't see anything being any worse than it already is as a result
> of hytertime. I mean the one example anyone can site is the Blackhawks
> thing, and that is not even a true example.
An example of Waid making a mistake/change and waiting till a year later
to
give a half-hearted explanation that never admits to a goof in the
first place?
> But even giving that to you,
> can you think of a less innocuous example with less ramifications of any
> real kind that that one.
Yes. But not really the point.
>
> Maybe Waid chose that example for that very reason. Maybe that was the
> point... Let's put this kind of minutiae in perspective and concentrate
> on what's really important.
OK. Waid first.
Well written stories that grap the reader are important.
Overhyped mini-series are not.
Trying not to dismiss your audience is important.
Asking carte blanche is not.
>
> <<Ah, but cleaning the floor means doing something. Hypertime is
> (potentially) about not cleaning the floor.>>
>
> No, hypertime (potenially) IS cleaning the floor.
How? You can't clean a floor by saying "doesn't matter".
> Using Mark's
> suggestion/example, the dead Blackhawks showing up in JLAYO is now clean.
> HOW it got clean and where the pieces and the milk are now just isn't
> important when put in perspective.
Right. Let me come by your house, break glass all over the place, spill
milk
in mass quantities, and say "It's clean" even though you never see any
evidence that it's clean.
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> > Depends on if you're a glass-half-empty or glass-half-full kinda person...>
>
> <<Um, no.
> The glass is both.>>
>
> Which is, of course, the POINT of Hypertime.
Um, no Hypertyme is about the broken glass.
Stay with the analogy.
Chris
So, before Kingdom, some of us were just happy we had a glass, and there was
something in it. Post-Kingdom, we don't know if it's really called a glass in this
universe?
--
~Chris
"Think as I think," said a man,
"Or you are abominably wicked;
"You are a toad."
And after I had thought of it,
I said, "I will, then, be a toad."
-Stephen Crane
To reply toss out my %CanO'SpamAway%
BHMarks
>Right. Let me come by your house, break glass all over the place, spill
>milk
>in mass quantities, and say "It's clean" even though you never see any
>evidence that it's clean.
Just define a floor with milk, pieces of broken glass, and slivers to be
"clean."
Just define a world in which two of the Blackhawks are both dead when JLA:Y1
takes place and alive as "the continuity of the DCU."
As ever,
Bennet
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> Richard D. Bergstresser Jr. wrote:
>
> > CATA79 wrote:
> > >
> > > > Depends on if you're a glass-half-empty or glass-half-full kinda person...>
> > >
> > > <<Um, no.
> > > The glass is both.>>
> > >
> > > Which is, of course, the POINT of Hypertime.
> >
> > Um, no Hypertyme is about the broken glass.
> > Stay with the analogy.
>
> So, before Kingdom, some of us were just happy we had a glass, and there was
> something in it. Post-Kingdom, we don't know if it's really called a glass in this
> universe?
I'll buy that.
Dan McEwen
>
> Dan McEwen <fe...@lsh.org> wrote:
>
> <<Those who jump to this conclusion? Did we all miss Mark Waid's
> comments? We didn't just randomly assume hypertime would play fast and
> loose with reality. Waid out and out said that such could happen. No
> conclusions jumped to there.>>
>
> I'll say it again, Mark Waid SUGGESTED a way to look at a continuity
> mistake already made in the past. I never saw Mark Waid suggest hypertime
> be used to ignore or alter continuity in the future.
Um, no. Check out his use of Blackhawks in JLA:Y1. Hypertime was
already at work.
> What he SUGGESTED was, instead of asking for an in-story, in-"continuity"
> explanation of how people who were dead, suddently weren't, he said let's
> let sleeping dogs lie and for those who need to wake them up, here's a
> way to do it that ceates as little mess in the BIG PICTURE as possible.
I find that stupid. For as long as I've been reading comics, villains
have been able to come back from the dead. It never required a lenghty
explanation - just something like "Even though I fell off that cliff
into the river, I miraculously washed ashore where I was taken care of
my Grizzly Adams, who nurse me to health." Bam. Explained.
eternally
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr. wrote:
> Michael Doran wrote:
> >
> > Dan McEwen <fe...@lsh.org> wrote:
> >
> > IMHO, hypertime is the meta-fictional equivilant of the expressions
> > "accidents happen", and "don't cry over spilled milk".
>
> And as such is an elaborate sleight of hand for "Oops, sorry."
> It's an editorial embracing of "Never show a weakness."
>
> IMNSHO, a good writer accepts that he is fallible. A cheesy one pawns
> off as a minseries an advance blanket protection clause for any faults
> he may have later.
that was pretty much the feeling *i* got reading the last few
pages of Kingdom #2.
> > It's about understanding that honest accidents happen as opposed to
> > dwelling on them, trying to glue together the glass, soping up the milk
> > with and rag, wringing it back into the now leaky glass, and trying to
> > cover up that it ever happened.
>
> It's about leaving broken glass and rancid milk all over the floor
> and saying "Oh, well..."
"oh well, i *meant* to do that,"
to be precise.
> But asking us to keep attending a resteraunt that won't sweep its
> floors is a little much.
exactly. there are other, better kept restaurants out there, after all...
-= e.
--
"Nowadays they call it 'A Kingdom of Wonder';
when I was a lad they called it 'an error'."
eternally
Dan McEwen wrote:
> Mikel Midnight wrote:
> >
> > In article <19990401180056...@ng-cr1.aol.com>,
> > cat...@aol.comCecil (CATA79) wrote:
> >
> > > C'mon, it's a joke...
> > >
> > > :)
> >
> > Actually, I have been a Hypertime detractor since day 1, and I have now
> > changed my mind and support the idea. And it's April 2nd.
>
> I don't know anyone who out and out opposed hypertime. What people did
> oppose was comments made by Mark Waid which were interpreted to mean
> that DC history can change from moment to moment. Most didn't mind the
> alternate realities.
Hypertime is not just alternate realities. we already had that, with
Elseworlds.
no one (that i know of ) had any objection to that.
-= e.
eternally
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr. wrote:
> Michael Doran wrote:
> >
> > I took Waid's comments (not only the specific comments but in context to
> > his many other comments, along with Morrison's, Carlin's, etc..) not to
> > suggest that all continuity was now up for grabs, but that from now on,
> > he thinks writers should concentrate more of looking forward, instead of
> > spending time trying to patch and mend mistakes that have ALREADY occured.
>
> Mayhaps, but how could they spend _less_ time at that effort than they
> do now?
> Waid in practice seems to actually be advocating making new mistakes.
>
> >
> > I did not read his comments as saying, let's pro-actively change
> > continuity on a dime and use this as the tool,
>
> True, but can you see it as "let's not sweat it when we don't
> feel like avoiding mistakes"?
>
> > I took it as "maybe we can
> > use this to explain to the mistakes that will occur on their own anyway,
> > and to explain inconsistencies in the past, instead of backtracking and
> > trying to offer more explanations that "make sense".
>
> OTOH, I think most of us expect mistakes to occur. The past volume is
> too
> large to avoid it. But contriving a formal explanation that, in advance,
> give caveat excuse to any mistake made subsequently? Who's being
> protected
> here?
>
> >
> > Somewhere on this board, somebody tried to explain the back story of
> > Black Canary... to me, hypertime is a reaction against THAT, not the
> > concept of keeing things conistent from here on in..
>
> "We no longer accept consistancy as a goal." is a valid reation to
> "We've
> been very unskilled at trying it before." I dunno, seems up there with
> "If it's inevitable, lie and back and enjoy it."
"close your eyes and think of England..."
> > That Waid
> > has the write to express his own opinion without it signaling the end of
> > western civilization as we know it?
>
> That Doran has the right to make absurd exaggerations? <G>
as always,
Michael Doran
>> I'll say it again, Mark Waid SUGGESTED a way to look at a continuity
mistake already made in the past. I never saw Mark Waid suggest
hypertime
be used to ignore or alter continuity in the future.<<
<<Um, no. Check out his use of Blackhawks in JLA:Y1. Hypertime was
already at work.>>
No, it wasn't.. It's clear by looking at the facts that Waid did not
INTEND for this to be an instance of hypertime's influence when JLYYO #1
was written. Hypertime was not already at work. Waid is on the record as
saying he didn't know what hyperttime was until 9 months after JLAYO #1
was published... which is a fact and distinction that makes all the
difference in the world...
<<I find that stupid. For as long as I've been reading comics, villains
have been able to come back from the dead. It never required a lenghty
explanation - just something like "Even though I fell off that cliff
into the river, I miraculously washed ashore where I was taken care of>my
Grizzly Adams, who nurse me to health." Bam. Explained.>>
But what if the JLAYO #1 Blackhawks thing was an honest mistake on his
part. What if he simply pulled a rock?
THEN what he would be saying is, instead of wasting time and energy
backtracking and explaining a mistake that was already published, here's
a new way of looking at it...
I think you are confusing intents here Dan. Whether Waid intended to
bring back the dead Blackhawk's via hypertime, and whether he made a
continuity error and was suggesting a non-intrusuve way of now looking at
it, is the issue at hand, and everything I see points me to the latter
conclusion.
michael
Michael Doran
<<Can you see how we consider that a paraphrase of "handwave it away"?>>
Yes...
<<Handwaving may be valid, but institutionalizing it as policy? It's
answering every continuity question, _in_advance_, with "Doesn't matter".
>>
a.) There's nothing out there to suggest DC is considering installing
this as "policy... b.) "every question"? No. SOME questions - partculary
questions involving inconsitencies that already exists and mistakes
already made that have little to no significant ramifications on future
stories and concepts? Why not?
<<Sure, but we've already seen that they don't do the former, and so
create situations in which we are left with the latter.>>
But that's a condition, and a "problem" that existed well before
hypertime. I still see no evidence that hypertime will exasperate this
"problem", or that it could. The one example anyone can offer (which I'll
say again is strictly the view point of a freelance creator) doesn't even
apply to this particular concern.
Like I say, show me something that suggests writers and editors will more
lax than they have been in the future because of hypertime. I don't see
it..
<<Have you read the last five years of DC comics? The former is not a
priority.>>
Kind of my point.... How does hypertime make it worse when argulably it
can't be any...?
<<Exactly. In perspective, it's human error. It doesn't required an
overhyped
kewl concept in-story to justiy.>>
But it's non-instrusive, and non-bonding. What I mean by that, for every
human error made in the past, readers can simply choose to look at them
for what it is, human error, move on and keep that in perspective. Very
good way to go about it as far as I'm concerned. Hypertime need not apply.
But you know as well as I, there are readers for which continuity has
become a pursuit onto itself, and these readers want these things to make
"sense". Hypertime gives these people a device which requires no
backtracking or expended energy other than what has already been offered.
<<An example of Waid making a mistake/change and waiting till a year
later to give a half-hearted explanation that never admits to a goof in
the
first place?>>
Exactly... simple human error remember? What difference does it make? For
me, this is what hypertime is about, to keep these things in perspective.
In the end, it doesn't matter why or how the error was made, and a reader
shouldn't need an explanation, an apology, or an admission of culpablity
before finally moving on.
In the big picture, the Blackhawks/JLAYO thing is done. For those of whom
its still an issue with, IMHO, are missing something, and the pursuit of
continuity has taken on too much of a life of it's own.
>> But even giving that to you, can you think of a less innocuous
example with less ramifications of any real kind that that one.<<
<<Yes. But not really the point.>>
Oh, it's exactly the point.
<<Well written stories that grap the reader are important.>>
Agreed, but what qualifies under this criteria is of course TOTALLY
subjective to the individual. I liked The Kingdom.
<<Overhyped mini-series are not.>>
See above
<<Trying not to dismiss your audience is important.>>
Not sure what this means. I have a background in sales and I've never
been a proponent of "the customer is always right". I think creators can
be most respectful to their audiences by being honest with them.
<<Asking carte blanche is not.>>
I haven't seen that request...
<<How? You can't clean a floor by saying "doesn't matter".>>
I'll say it again, the floor is clean. Hypertime is about sayinng "Here,
the floor is clean, please feel comfortable in my kitchen and keep in
mind what's REALLY important here, and that's enjoying the next meal, and
that fresh glass of milk. Please don't let you enjoyment of that mea,
your beverage and our dinnertime conversation be compromised by your
preoccupation with how I cleaned the floor."
<<Right. Let me come by your house, break glass all over the place,
spill
milk in mass quantities, and say "It's clean" even though you never see
any
evidence that it's clean.>>
Exactly, we got to the root of this. It's this "need to see any evidence"
that is in question, and in my opinion, this level of "need" has gotten
out of whack. This "need" has become a pursuit of its own.
Blackhawks showing up in JLAYO was a mistake, a result of human error. I
don't see any reason anyone "needs" anything beyond simply that
realization.
Sure, you can respond to that by saying, "so we didn't NEED hypertime for
this", and I agree wholeheartedly. But hypertime has OTHER applications,
is not instrusive and non-binding in this specific application, and IMHO,
serves more as an in-story commentary, a a sort of meta-fictional
editorial note, about keeping this whole issue in perspective...
m.
Michael Doran
<<Well, considering what we know of Crisis and Zero Hour, maybe it is
best
that they leave those efforts behind for good?>>
<<That's what I'm saying. I thought they _had_. Have there been any
serious editorial pushes for such since ZH?>>
No that I know of...okay, we're in agreement about this...
<<Combine the comments with what he put on the page and comments from
elsewhere. RE: Blackhawks.>>
Right, an example of a mistake alread made... maybe chosen for ths reason
specifically.
<<See above. He can't advocate a more lax attitude than currently held
by
DC. <G>>>
Well, exactly, so what's the problem? :)
<<He can and seems to be advocating a laxer attitde than _previously_
held
though.>>
About their regard to mistakes already made, and mistakes made from
honest hman error? Yes, if by lax you mean they'll just acknowledge them
as honest mistakes and not make an effort to "explain" these errors in-
story, I think that's a good thing.
If by lax you mean they'll concerns themselves less with NOT making
honest mistakes, or make mistakes intentionally, I don't see that as a
danger or concern...
<<It's what he stated, IIRC. Yes I spun it more negatively, but Hypertyme
is given as an _in-story_ way of explaining previous and future
contradictions.>>
Yes, but what I DON'T see is that is given as a device to INCREASE the
number of mistakes made, or to make creators any less concerned with
making them, or give them reason to make them intentionally.
<<But he's pretty much proclaimed that his "new" toy allows _all_ stories
to be true in the "mainstream" context.>>
Which is bad why?
<<I honestly can't imagine Mark Waid, Grant Morrison, Tom Peyer, Dan
Raspler and the rest expended that kind of time and energy to draft
themselves big continuity "get out of jail free" card...>>
<<Why not? It's not a complicated or time consuming concept.>>
Because from what I know of these creators, the seemed much more
concerned with telling good stories than they are giving themselves ways
to make their jobs easier.
Judgement call on my part to be sure, but they all seem to have a deep,
if not reverential respect to what has come before, and more imporantly,
a deep, clearly reverential respect to what REALLY makes these characters
and concepts so enduring in the first place. IMHO, they are concerned
with telling good stories, maybe moreso than telling "consistent" stories
for the sake of consistency.
As I see, it, there are poblems inherent to keeping monthly, mutiple,
serial titles existing win a larger external universe and created by
dozens to hundred of different creators consistent over years and decades,
and these creators to me seem to recognize that, and are keeping the
proper ways to address those inevitable problems in perspective.
m.
Radarcom
> It then smashes to many pieces. But all of those pieces are TRUE!
This is only partly right. Hypertime throws *many* glasses, all of
which are different, across the room in an erratic frenzy. It them
smashes them all to many pieces. Then it takes random pieces and tried
to fit them together, irregardless of whether or not they belong
together. Sometimes the pieces will match up, but other times they
won't. It's those times when the match fails that are problematic.
>>
So true! They are literally walking on broken glass.
Radarcom
"accidents happen", and "don't cry over spilled milk".
It's about understanding that honest accidents happen as opposed to
dwelling on them, trying to glue together the glass, soping up the milk
with and rag, wringing it back into the now leaky glass, and trying to
cover up that it ever happened. >>
But in this Hypertimeline, the cow wears a cape and swears vengeance on the
duck that killed his parents when he was a boy! It's all true!
Radarcom
> this way... IMHO, those who jump to this conclusion are missing the point.
The words "everything is true" pretty much covers the evidence.
Now I know how those Dallas fans felt when Bobby Ewing stepped out of the
shower.
Radarcom
<<Um, no.
The glass is both.>>
Which is, of course, the POINT of Hypertime.>>
Exactly. Comics for those who don't like decisions made or direction.
Dan McEwen
> mistake already made in the past. I never saw Mark Waid suggest
> hypertime
> be used to ignore or alter continuity in the future.<<
>
> <<Um, no. Check out his use of Blackhawks in JLA:Y1. Hypertime was
> already at work.>>
>
> No, it wasn't.. It's clear by looking at the facts that Waid did not
> INTEND for this to be an instance of hypertime's influence when JLYYO #1
> was written. Hypertime was not already at work. Waid is on the record as
> saying he didn't know what hyperttime was until 9 months after JLAYO #1
> was published... which is a fact and distinction that makes all the
> difference in the world...
And you'd be right if Waid hadn't said that the Blackhawk scenario
wasn't a perfect hypertime scenario. Remember, *anything* can be
hypertimed. Hypertime "always" existed - we're only just hearing about
it now.
> But what if the JLAYO #1 Blackhawks thing was an honest mistake on his
> part. What if he simply pulled a rock?
Then I don't care. I didn't even know there was a mistake. I might
point out the error, but any explanation from "he's a clone" to "he just
looks like that guy" to "he has the same name" to "he was blipped
temporarily through time and flew with his buddies one last time". I'd
prefer to explanation be for me to decide that have it be that another
universe temporarily connected to the main one and then split again.
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> <<Handwaving may be valid, but institutionalizing it as policy? It's
> answering every continuity question, _in_advance_, with "Doesn't matter".
> >>
>
> a.) There's nothing out there to suggest DC is considering installing
> this as "policy...
Really? Multiple high profile writers and editors signing onto it.
A mini-series/skip-week/other-semantically-nigh-identical-tag intended
to install it?
Promoted as the greatest event since Crisis?
b.) "every question"? No. SOME questions - partculary
> questions involving inconsitencies that already exists and mistakes
> already made that have little to no significant ramifications on future
> stories and concepts?
Waid is on record as saying it can cover such flubs in the future.
> Why not?
It's disengenuous.
>
> <<Sure, but we've already seen that they don't do the former, and so
> create situations in which we are left with the latter.>>
>
> But that's a condition, and a "problem" that existed well before
> hypertime.
Zactly. And still exist after. Handwaving a smoke and mirror
justification
solves things, if at all, at only the most superficial level.
> I still see no evidence that hypertime will exasperate this
> "problem", or that it could.
You may be right. The problem is already ingrained. Hypertyme is just a
further sympton.
> The one example anyone can offer (which I'll
> say again is strictly the view point of a freelance creator) doesn't even
> apply to this particular concern.
I count two examples. Which one are you ignoring?
OTOH, The "creator" of the viewpoints POV is irrelevant?
>
> Like I say, show me something that suggests writers and editors will more
> lax than they have been in the future because of hypertime. I don't see
> it..
I think I agreed with that statement.
>
> <<Have you read the last five years of DC comics? The former is not a
> priority.>>
>
> Kind of my point.... How does hypertime make it worse when argulably it
> can't be any...?
It makes it worse by putting a name and policy towards an already
aggrevated conceit.
>
> <<Exactly. In perspective, it's human error. It doesn't required an
> overhyped
> kewl concept in-story to justiy.>>
>
> But it's non-instrusive, and non-bonding.
An overhyped event is non-intrusive?
A new kewl label splashed all over the place is non-intrusive?
> What I mean by that, for every
> human error made in the past, readers can simply choose to look at them
> for what it is, human error, move on and keep that in perspective.
So could writers. Instead they choose Hypertyme Brand Dish Soap (tm)!
> Very
> good way to go about it as far as I'm concerned. Hypertime need not apply.
Danke. What were we arguing about? :)
>
> But you know as well as I, there are readers for which continuity has
> become a pursuit onto itself, and these readers want these things to make
> "sense".
Hell, I'm one of them.
> Hypertime gives these people a device which requires no
> backtracking or expended energy other than what has already been offered.
Actually it does. From the continuity-obsessed mindset we noe have to
track multiple interweaving time streams and decipher which established
events apply in which author's current timelines and which we can
dismiss
as "mistakes".
>
> <<An example of Waid making a mistake/change and waiting till a year
> later to give a half-hearted explanation that never admits to a goof in
> the
> first place?>>
>
> Exactly... simple human error remember?
But should we encourage authors who are too shallow to own up to it,
and instead contrive bizzarre escape valves? It this the means by which
we encourage good storytelling?
> What difference does it make? For
> me, this is what hypertime is about, to keep these things in perspective.
Again. To demonstrate the irrelevance of something we must have a major
release that declares it the indisputable fact of the fictional
universe?
Like I said to Elayne, don't think about elephants.
> In the end, it doesn't matter why or how the error was made, and a reader
> shouldn't need an explanation, an apology, or an admission of culpablity
> before finally moving on.
So why'd DC feel required to give one?
>
> In the big picture, the Blackhawks/JLAYO thing is done. For those of whom
> its still an issue with, IMHO, are missing something,
Or refusing to miss something.
> and the pursuit of
> continuity has taken on too much of a life of it's own.
Where?
Seriously, since ZH, has this been a problem in DC's editorial policy?
Have fans left in droves over Denny O'Neill's random Bat-proclamations?
Are GL's sales (as Omar cites) "stronger than ever" despite Marz
contradicting himself in the _same_ issue?
You're deriding a 1980's problem.
OTOH, if continuity has become an obsession why play to it as you claim
Hypertyme does?
Has the corporate entity know as DC comics become an unstable MPD?
>
> >> But even giving that to you, can you think of a less innocuous
> example with less ramifications of any real kind that that one.<<
>
> <<Yes. But not really the point.>>
>
> Oh, it's exactly the point.
What? The degree of error in that specific examples renders the whole
argument moot?
Screwing up the Blackawks is hunky dory 'cause no one really cares
anyways?
Draw the line where we cut off "irrelevant" from "canon".
Draw it distinctively.
Then degree of ramification becomes the point.
>
> <<Well written stories that grap the reader are important.>>
>
> Agreed, but what qualifies under this criteria is of course TOTALLY
> subjective to the individual. I liked The Kingdom.
>
> <<Overhyped mini-series are not.>>
>
> See above
You liked the story. Did you like the hype?
>
> <<Trying not to dismiss your audience is important.>>
>
> Not sure what this means. I have a background in sales and I've never
> been a proponent of "the customer is always right". I think creators can
> be most respectful to their audiences by being honest with them.
Belies your arguement so far.
Honesty is "sorry, we screwed up",
not "It's all true!!!!!!"
>
> <<Asking carte blanche is not.>>
>
> I haven't seen that request...
You sure you read Kingdom?
>
> <<How? You can't clean a floor by saying "doesn't matter".>>
>
> I'll say it again, the floor is clean.
Show me a clean floor. I don't see one.
I see undead Blackhawks, merged Hawkpeople, an ameoba Supergirl, etc...
> Hypertime is about sayinng "Here,
> the floor is clean, please feel comfortable in my kitchen and keep in
> mind what's REALLY important here, and that's enjoying the next meal, and
> that fresh glass of milk. Please don't let you enjoyment of that mea,
> your beverage and our dinnertime conversation be compromised by your
> preoccupation with how I cleaned the floor."
"Um, sir, um, but you haven't cleaned the floor. Look there'e a spot
right
there. Come dear, let's eat somewhere where the staff is less
delusional."
>
> <<Right. Let me come by your house, break glass all over the place,
> spill
> milk in mass quantities, and say "It's clean" even though you never see
> any
> evidence that it's clean.>>
>
> Exactly, we got to the root of this. It's this "need to see any evidence"
> that is in question, and in my opinion, this level of "need" has gotten
> out of whack. This "need" has become a pursuit of its own.
Mike this isn't hard. If I tell you the floor is clean while your
looking
straight at it and can TELL that it isn't, then I'm quite simply, a
liar!
To reverse the analogy though: If you look at a floor and can tell it's
clean, you need me to go for hours about how we cleaned it? Or for hours
about how it doesn't matter if we cleaned it? Or denying that it was
ever
dirty? Or blaming the customers desire for clean floors for us dirtying
them in the first place? From these perspective I see the Hypertyme
concept
as a deliberate insult to the intelligence of the fan.
>
> Blackhawks showing up in JLAYO was a mistake, a result of human error. I
> don't see any reason anyone "needs" anything beyond simply that
> realization.
Exactly. Explain the purpose of Kingdom again?
>
> Sure, you can respond to that by saying, "so we didn't NEED hypertime for
> this", and I agree wholeheartedly. But hypertime has OTHER applications,
> is not instrusive and non-binding in this specific application, and IMHO,
> serves more as an in-story commentary, a a sort of meta-fictional
> editorial note, about keeping this whole issue in perspective...
Oh, Okay, I hate those. <G>
I want a story, not a text page.
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> About their regard to mistakes already made, and mistakes made from
> honest hman error? Yes, if by lax you mean they'll just acknowledge them
> as honest mistakes and not make an effort to "explain" these errors in-
> story, I think that's a good thing.
This is the part I'm waiting for. For creators to admit when they screw
up
and stop crying that "Wah, fans are obsessed with continuity!"
>
> If by lax you mean they'll concerns themselves less with NOT making
> honest mistakes, or make mistakes intentionally, I don't see that as a
> danger or concern...
I see the concern as they'll intentionally make contradictions that are
needed for "their" story, and when a fan complains, cheerfully say, "oh,
those other events happened in a different timeline!".
Why can't these people honestly say, simply, we chose to change it for
the sake of the story?
It seems they lack the courage to believe that their stories ARE strong
enough to justify the changes.
In the '80's Miller and Byrne made such changes and let the story
justify them.
In the '90's Waid and Marz make them and then feel a need to write
elaborate
backstories justifying them.
>
> <<It's what he stated, IIRC. Yes I spun it more negatively, but Hypertyme
> is given as an _in-story_ way of explaining previous and future
> contradictions.>>
>
> Yes, but what I DON'T see is that is given as a device to INCREASE the
> number of mistakes made, or to make creators any less concerned with
> making them, or give them reason to make them intentionally.
Simply put, with an in place explanation for why mistakes don't matter,
the incentive to avoid them is greatly lessened.
>
> <<But he's pretty much proclaimed that his "new" toy allows _all_ stories
>
> to be true in the "mainstream" context.>>
>
> Which is bad why?
Ultimate order is ultimate chaos.
There is no context anymore if the context includes everything.
>
> <<I honestly can't imagine Mark Waid, Grant Morrison, Tom Peyer, Dan
> Raspler and the rest expended that kind of time and energy to draft
> themselves big continuity "get out of jail free" card...>>
>
> <<Why not? It's not a complicated or time consuming concept.>>
>
> Because from what I know of these creators, the seemed much more
> concerned with telling good stories than they are giving themselves ways
> to make their jobs easier.
Otay. From what I know of Morrison and Raspler I'd agree.
I know little of Peyer other than finding his non-Legion work supports
your view here, while his Legion work supports mine. Waid, OTOH, once
upon a time cared about stories, now he cares about events and spite.
IMO.
>
> Judgement call on my part to be sure, but they all seem to have a deep,
> if not reverential respect to what has come before,
Waid??????
He used to, but he's lost it. IMO.
> and more imporantly,
> a deep, clearly reverential respect to what REALLY makes these characters
> and concepts so enduring in the first place.
Again Waid???
The man behind JLAY1 and Underworld Unleashed?
> IMHO, they are concerned
> with telling good stories, maybe moreso than telling "consistent" stories
> for the sake of consistency.
I agree that may be _their_ point of view.
I believe it's a false dichotomy.
Consistancy IS part of good storytelling.
Dismissiveness isn't.
>
> As I see, it, there are poblems inherent to keeping monthly, mutiple,
> serial titles existing win a larger external universe and created by
> dozens to hundred of different creators consistent over years and decades,
> and these creators to me seem to recognize that, and are keeping the
> proper ways to address those inevitable problems in perspective.
Why do you keep defining "perspective" as "event"?
Michael Doran
<<And you'd be right if Waid hadn't said that the Blackhawk scenario
wasn't a perfect hypertime scenario. Remember, *anything* can be
hypertimed. Hypertime "always" existed - we're only just hearing about
it now.>>
But this is when as readers, our "external" knowledge of the events comes
into play. We KNOW hypertime did NOT exist in 12/97, and that's an
important distinction in this dicussion.
Why? Because as best as I can tell, you and others are suggesting
hypertime will CAUSE, LEAD, and/or RESULT in MORE of the kind of
occurances you think the Blackhawks thing exemplies. So it's entirely
relevant to point out that even THAT example was NOT a direct result, or
was NOT caused by hypertime in any link. Tere is no causal link there...
The point at issue here is not whether anything CAN be hypertimed, as I
agree it "can", the question is will hypertime LEAD to errors like the
Blackhawks example. And as hypertime clearly DID not lead to it, or have
any relation to THAT mistake being made, I don't thnk it effectively
supports the argument.
<<I might point out the error, but any explanation from "he's a clone" to
"he just looks like that guy" to "he has the same name" to "he was
blipped
temporarily through time and flew with his buddies one last time". I'd
prefer to explanation be for me to decide that have it be that another
universe temporarily connected to the main one and then split again. >>
But I think you are missing the underlying point. It's a non-explanation
explanation. It's not being proactively offered or dictated in an actual
story. To me, that's the point.
For those who can get past the errors without an explanation being
offered, hypertime allows for that.
For those who need SOME kind of explanation, hypertime allows for that,
WITHOUT creating new "continuity" that could potentially conflict with
past and future stories, and without the need to spend story pages
backtracking to make the explanation.
For those who WANT storytime spent explaining it and WANT new explantions
like "clones" or what have you, that might already conflict with another
story involving the Blackhawks, then hypertime is not for you. For me,
hypertime is a movement (and welcome one) against that kind of attention
being paid to the insignificant minutiae of 'continuity".
m.
Michael Doran
<<The words "everything is true" pretty much covers the evidence.>>
What about that statement leads you to the conclusion writers are going
to pay less attention to the established facts than before?
Having heard Waid say that in CONTEXT (responding to speculation that the
pre-Crisis multiverse was returning), I took it to me everything you have
already read is true, it happened....
And, well... as it DID, I don't see the problem...
m.
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> rada...@aol.com (Radarcom) wrote:
>
> <<The words "everything is true" pretty much covers the evidence.>>
>
> What about that statement leads you to the conclusion writers are going
> to pay less attention to the established facts than before?
Simple. For that statement to be true the established facts carry no
weight.
A writer who truly believes "everything is true" has no reason to even
worry
about established facts.
>
> Having heard Waid say that in CONTEXT (responding to speculation that the
> pre-Crisis multiverse was returning), I took it to me everything you have
> already read is true, it happened....
>
> And, well... as it DID, I don't see the problem...
In certain contexts it cannot all be true.
If it IS all true there is NO definable context.
This is classic 1=2 for certin definitions of 1.
A cute, mayhaps demonstratable, theory, but of little practical use
in a bounded system.
Again, if ALL stories have equal weight, then, in relative terms,
no story has ANY weight.
Dan McEwen
> weight. A writer who truly believes "everything is true" has no reason to
> even
> worry about established facts.>>
>
> published is now regarded as an "established fact". I need not
> distingusihed between the published stories that ae "fact", and the
> published stories that are not.
OK, I see. Dick Grayson, of the present-focused universe, started his
career both when he was 8 *and* 14?
Michael Doran
<<Really? Multiple high profile writers and editors signing onto it. A
mini-series/skip-week/other-semantically-nigh-identical-tag intended
>to install it? Promoted as the greatest event since Crisis?>>
I don't know... The application of hypertime I've seen so far
(Hypertension) does not do anything in this partcular "problem" area...Me,
I'm content for them to do it ONCE, or see evidence that this will
exasperate continuity problems from here on in, before I conclude that
such an application has been installed as a "policy".
<<Waid is on record as saying it can cover such flubs in the future.>>
As far as I know, Waid is not on record stating or suggesting it will
result in more flubs, or is designed to make writers less concerned with
making them in the first place. Again, we're always left with having to
make the conclusion that because they potentially can, they will, or
that's the reason it's exists in the first place.
<<But that's a condition, and a "problem" that existed well before
hypertime.>>
<<Zactly. And still exist after. Handwaving a smoke and mirror
justification
solves things, if at all, at only the most superficial level.>>
So what's the solution here? Is there is better way to address continuity
errors in the future that you know of? Or are you suggesting we look for
solution to continuity errors being made at all, and/or are you hoping
that someday they will never be made?
Well, guess what, hypertime does nothing to stand in the way of the
latter ideal...
<<You may be right. The problem is already ingrained. Hypertyme is just a
further sympton.>>
No, I think it's a treatment designed to alleviate the discomfort caused
by the symptoms, until a cure can be found. Do you know of a cure? Do you
even know of a better treatment?
Hypertime exists to allow patients to enjoy life without being pre-
occupied with their discomfort. It's DC's equivilent to medical marijuana.
. IMHO.
<<I count two examples. Which one are you ignoring?>>
I don't know, I'm talking about the Blackhawks thing. So I guess my
answer would be the other one, though I can't think of what it is...
<<OTOH, The "creator" of the viewpoints POV is irrelevant?>>
When the example he offers does not apply to the concern being expressed,
yes. I'll say it again, I find no apparent link between the Blackhawks
and creators being more lax in future application of continuity. But then
you go on to say you think you agreed with this statement, so I admit,
I'm not sure what we're talking about here...
<<It makes it worse by putting a name and policy towards an already
aggrevated conceit.>>
One could also argue its simply accepting (wisely IMHO) the inevitable,
and working best they can within that framework.
<<An overhyped event is non-intrusive? A new kewl label splashed all over
the place is non-intrusive?>>
Name me a ONE story that actually USES hypertime in any kind of intrusive,
or hell, in any definitive way (in context to the concerns being
expressed). I've said this dozens of time already, and I'll say it again..
Hypertime has not resulted in any new continuity errors. Hypertime has
not made any existing errors worse than they were. It has not been
applied in-story in this way...It has not had any in-story, tangible
effect on the fabric of continuity, aside from planting a seed in the
head of readers.
That's what I mean by non-instrusive...
<<So could writers. Instead they choose Hypertyme Brand Dish Soap
(tm)!>>
Total agreement.
<<Actually it does. From the continuity-obsessed mindset we noe have to
track multiple interweaving time streams and decipher which established
events apply in which author's current timelines and which we can
dismiss as "mistakes". >>
Well, as I think hypertime is about NOT being continuity-obsessed (which
is the point) that's a tough question to answer. But let me give it a
shot....
Ignore hypertime. Sure, Kingdom #2 suggests how hypertime can effect the
main DCU timeline, but it offers no specific examples of when it HAS. So
wherever you have continuity concerns and problems, assume this that is
NOT an example of hypertime, and that it's either a mistake, or that an
alternative explanation is out there. The Blackhawks mistake was out
there for a year before The Kingdom #2, so as that "explanation" has not
appeared in an actual story (the only way to insert something in
continuity, IMHO), then just go back to explaining it to yourself they
way you did from early December 1997, to the last day of 1998.
For you, the contnuity-obsessed, everything can be exactly how is was
before Kingdom #2. Nothing is being dictated otherwise, which is the
point.
<<But should we encourage authors who are too shallow to own up to it,
and instead contrive bizzarre escape valves?>>
As I'm not one to concern myself with writers "owning up" to
inconsequentional mistakes, and as someone who believes that honest
mistakes will ALWAYS be a part of comic books continuity, I have no
answer to that question.
<<It this the means by which we encourage good storytelling???
For ME, good storytellingn means SO much more than any compromised in
this partcular instance. I think so suggest this compromises what I feel
are the important factors of good storytelling, is VASTLY overstating
it's effects, and as a result, counter-productive (i.e. there are a LOT
more important things to concentrate on and giving so much attention to
this compromises those things)
<<Again. To demonstrate the irrelevance of something we must have a major
release that declares it the indisputable fact of the fictional universe?
Like I said to Elayne, don't think about elephants.>>
You lost me...
<<So why'd DC feel required to give one?>>
To maybe get the people who DO feel like they need one on the same boat
as the rest of us...?
<<OTOH, if continuity has become an obsession why play to it as you claim
Hypertyme does? Has the corporate entity know as DC comics become an
unstable MPD?>>
I interpret hypertime as an effort to get past it, rather than play it.
Remember I'm the one who has been arguing about it's passivity and non-
intrusiveness...
<<What? The degree of error in that specific examples renders the whole
argument moot?>>
When the point is "let's keep the minutiae of continuity in perspective",
YES.
<<Screwing up the Blackawks is hunky dory 'cause no one really cares
anyways?>>
Hunky dory? No. Accept and move on and keep in perspective why you bought,
read, and either like and did not like JLAYO? Yes.
<<Draw the line where we cut off "irrelevant" from "canon". Draw it
distinctively. Then degree of ramification becomes the point.>>
Again, as someone who believes that probably a very good portion of
"canon" is "irrelevant" in context to what I think is good storytelling
and why I read comics, I can't really answer that question.
The founding members of the JLA interacting with each other in their
first year of existence, and in that phase of their respective careers is
why I read JLAYO. Two dead characters showing up in a minor appearance
which had little effect on the story Waid was telling didn't compromise
this. That's the best answer I can provide.
<<You liked the story. Did you like the hype?>>
I might not be the one to ask this because one doesn't have very far to
go to argue I was somewhat responsibe for some of the hype. But to
address the issue, no, I do not qualify my enjoyment on a sliding scale
in relationship to the amount of "hype" preceding it.
I really liked Titanic, I expect to really like Phanton Menace. I'm not
bothered by the hype, and it doesn't effect my opinion of the work.
<<Belies your arguement so far. Honesty is "sorry, we screwed up", not
"It's all true!!!!!!">>
As I said to someone else, I think you're taking the "It's all true"
statement out of context. But maybe hypertime is exactly this however.
One can interpret hypertime as DC's admission that they've made mistakes,
they will mistakes and their resolve not to make more of an issue of out
these mistakes than necessary.
Like I say, would DC printing regular columns in their books identifying
their mistakes and offering their apologies really make you enjoy the
books more?
<<You sure you read Kingdom?>>
Twice...<g>
<<Show me a clean floor. I don't see one. I see undead Blackhawks, merged
Hawkpeople, an ameoba Supergirl, etc...>>
Theoritically, according to Waid's suggestion, another timeline merged
with the main timeline (a timeline that is a product of a retcon itself
btw, Black Canary was NOT a REAL founding member of the JLA) which
resulted in those dead characters appearing. The floor is clean, we're
ready for dinner, which was the story of the the JLA's founding.
<<"Um, sir, um, but you haven't cleaned the floor. Look there'e a spot
right there. Come dear, let's eat somewhere where the staff is less
delusional.">>
More clean than it was before hypertime. According to this analogy, the
dead Blackhawks are still sitting broken on the floor had hypertime never
been introduced. You have to admit, the floor is no dirtier...
<<Mike this isn't hard. If I tell you the floor is clean while your
looking
straight at it and can TELL that it isn't, then I'm quite simply, a
liar!>>
It's clean to me. Now I know why those characters might have been there,
and I know why they might not be around today. I'm perfectly comfortable
in my bare feet.
<<To reverse the analogy though: If you look at a floor and can tell it's
clean, you need me to go for hours about how we cleaned it? Or for hours
about how it doesn't matter if we cleaned it? Or denying that it was ever
dirty? Or blaming the customers desire for clean floors for us dirtying
them in the first place? From these perspective I see the Hypertyme
concept as a deliberate insult to the intelligence of the fan.>>
From this pespective I see a reader who can't see the forest for the
floor, and is spending a bit too much time looking down instead of
forward. I'll say it again, the floor was dirty well before hypertime was
introduced. I see no indication to suggest that the floor was dirtied by
anything by honest human error, and I don't know of any attempt to CLEAN
it the year it was dirtly prior to hypertime.
Whether or not the floor is now clean is something we'll probably never
agree on.. but what we should be able to agree on is the fact that's it's
no dirtier than it was before.
What you perceive as an insult, I perceive as a show of respect to my
kind of reader, and a commitment to the effect that they will no longer
cater to the continuity-obsessed fan in relation to the non-continuity
obsessed fan.
<<Exactly. Explain the purpose of Kingdom again?>>
Read the last 3 issues of Superboy for a partial answer...
<<Oh, Okay, I hate those. <G> I want a story, not a text page.>>
I got news for you, you've been reading meta-textually commentary on
issues and themes played out under the guise of stories for LONG time
before hypertime showed up.
What the heck do you think KINGDOM COME was but at least partially a
commentary on the direction the industiry went in regarding its treatment
of superheroes post-Watchmen and Dark Knight Returns?
michael
BHMarks
>Having heard Waid say that in CONTEXT (responding to speculation that the
>pre-Crisis multiverse was returning), I took it to me everything you have
>already read is true, it happened....
>And, well... as it DID, I don't see the problem...
[/SARCASM ON/]
Michael, why do you cling to an obviously false idea? The things you read are
*not* true, they did *not* happen. They're comic book stories.
[/SARCASM OFF/]
Sauce for the goose . . . .
As ever,
Bennet
Michael Doran
<<Simple. For that statement to be true the established facts carry no
weight. A writer who truly believes "everything is true" has no reason to
even
worry about established facts.>>
I take it as the opposite. I take it as that everything that has been
published is now regarded as an "established fact". I need not
distingusihed between the published stories that ae "fact", and the
published stories that are not.
They're all facts somewhere in a certain timeline somewhere.. I thought
the problem with hypertime is NOT with the multiple timelines angle.. so
I don't see the problem here...
<<In certain contexts it cannot all be true. If it IS all true there is
NO definable context.>>
In context of a universe with infinite timelines, why not?
<<Again, if ALL stories have equal weight, then, in relative terms, no
story has ANY weight.>>
Why not? The main DCU timeline is still the main DCU timeline... why is
this any different now than it ever was..?
m.
Michael Doran
<<This is the part I'm waiting for. For creators to admit when they screw
up
and stop crying that "Wah, fans are obsessed with continuity!">>
Not sure what difference that would make either way, but if I had a
choose one or another, I know *I* would rather these readers shut up than
those creators own up... but that's just me...
<<I see the concern as they'll intentionally make contradictions that are
needed for "their" story, and when a fan complains, cheerfully say, "oh,
>those other events happened in a different timeline!". Why can't these
people honestly say, simply, we chose to change it for the sake of the
story?>>
Again, I don't know how this concern affects the quality of storytelling,
and I thin you know as well as I do there ARE readers who wil ask for
SOME kind of in-story explanation.
<<It seems they lack the courage to believe that their stories ARE strong
enough to justify the changes.>>
I don't know about that.... DC hasn't seemed shy to reboot titles since
Crisis, which in my opinion shows they are not afraid to do this...
<<Simply put, with an in place explanation for why mistakes don't matter,
the incentive to avoid them is greatly lessened.>>
As I've been saying, the because they can they will line of argument. I
don't buy that, and will wait until I see evidence to suggest I should
reconsider that position before I do.
<<Ultimate order is ultimate chaos. There is no context anymore if the
context includes everything.>>
I don't see why context can't include everything...What about
"everything" defies context?
<<I agree that may be _their_ point of view. I believe it's a false
dichotomy.
Consistancy IS part of good storytelling. Dismissiveness isn't.>>
Didn't the pre-Crisis Golden age and ivler ago eras of DC do pretty well,
with a much more loose handling of "continuity".
Me, I define storytelling as the beginning and end of a actual story. I
don't apply storytelling to ALL events from beginning to end of a shared,
ongoing universe of characters and titles.
I think they should be kept consistent, but not to a point where the
pursuit take son a life of their own.
>>As I see, it, there are poblems inherent to keeping monthly, mutiple,
serial titles existing win a larger external universe and created by
dozens to hundred of different creators consistent over years and decades,
and these creators to me seem to recognize that, and are keeping the
proper ways to address those inevitable problems in perspective.<<
<<Why do you keep defining "perspective" as "event"?>>
You lost me..
m.
CATA79
this any different now than it ever was..? >>
It's not. DC still has to maintain a constant reader base, and I don't think
we'll see the mixing-of-timelines aspect of Hypertime all that much -- unless
it's within the context of a finite storyline. I wouldn't continue to support
(or buy) DC if alternate Hypertimelines become as important as the "one, true
timeline," or if continuity starts changing between panels like some people
think it will.
And as for the OTHER big worry about this mixing-of-timelines, my prediction is
that Hypertime's not going to cause any more laziness or shoddy storytelling
that what's ALREADY existed at ANY comics company. Only time will tell if that
prediction comes true. . . and if I'm wrong, I'll start dropping any DC book
that uses Hypertime in this way. (And I'll come back here and admit it,
too...)
THE UNOFFICIAL HYPERTIME WEB SITE--Your Guide to the Kingdoms of Wonder
http://members.aol.com/cata79/hypertime.html NOW WITH MESSAGE BOARD!!!
with your host, Cecil Adkins
The future. . . isn't what it used to be.
Michael Doran
<<OK, I see. Dick Grayson, of the present-focused universe, started his
career both when he was 8 *and* 14? >>
No, the present-focused Dick stated h is career at one age, another Dick
of an alternate timeline stated his career at another.
May I ask you a question. Is whether or not he started his career at 8 or
14, or even if it stated definitively either way, going to make you enjoy
Nightwing, The Titans, or the Bat-titles any more or less?
And if so, how?
michael
Dan McEwen
So far as hypertime goes, no. So far as the 10-year timeline goes, yes.
The 10-year timeline makes the ages of certain characters implausible,
at the very least
eternally
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr. wrote:
>
> > But you know as well as I, there are readers for which continuity has
> > become a pursuit onto itself, and these readers want these things to make
> > "sense".
>
> Hell, I'm one of them.
you ARE?! geez, what the hell is wrong with you, Rich!!!?
there's obviously something wrong with those people. they're like,
anal retentive obsessive or something. they must be.....right.....? : )
(btw, i thought you quit the hivemind, what'sup with saying
reasonable things?)
-= e.
eternally
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr. wrote:
> > and the pursuit of
> > continuity has taken on too much of a life of it's own.
>
> Where?
> Seriously, since ZH, has this been a problem in DC's editorial policy?
> Have fans left in droves over Denny O'Neill's random Bat-proclamations?
> Are GL's sales (as Omar cites) "stronger than ever" despite Marz
> contradicting himself in the _same_ issue?
> You're deriding a 1980's problem.
> OTOH, if continuity has become an obsession why play to it as you claim
> Hypertyme does?
surely you know "demonizing" a viewpoint you disagree with
(such as by calling it an "obsession", for instance) is the easiest
thought-free way to discredit it, yes...?
> > <<Asking carte blanche is not.>>
> >
> > I haven't seen that request...
>
> You sure you read Kingdom?
he *liked* it, remember...?
> To reverse the analogy though: If you look at a floor and can tell it's
> clean, you need me to go for hours about how we cleaned it? Or for hours
> about how it doesn't matter if we cleaned it? Or denying that it was
> ever
> dirty? Or blaming the customers desire for clean floors for us dirtying
> them in the first place? From these perspective I see the Hypertyme
> concept
> as a deliberate insult to the intelligence of the fan.
that was my feeling, on the last few pages of Kingdom. apparently
others thought it played to their intelligence level perfectly or something.
> Oh, Okay, I hate those. <G>
> I want a story, not a text page.
i dunno, i kinda liked the little editor's notes that used to appear
more in the Silver Age. like in the recent 100-page JLA Giant.
they're kinda neat and show the editors actually have a clue, aside
from their obvious utility.
Michael Doran
<<So far as hypertime goes, no. So far as the 10-year timeline goes, yes.
The 10-year timeline makes the ages of certain characters implausible, at
the very least>>
Which illustrates why even trying to define such things is an inherent
and inevitable problem are associated with the type of medium we are
discussing here...
Hyperttime to me is a no muss, no fuss answer to this very type of issue.
And I personally think readers who concern themsleves with issue such as
the careers of most DC heroes not making sense in a 10- year timeline are
missing something...ot at least focusing on something that is a best a
distraction and at worst a colossal waste of time.
m.
Joseph T. Arendt
>Michael Doran wrote:
>>
>> Dan McEwen <fe...@lsh.org> wrote:
>>
>> <<OK, I see. Dick Grayson, of the present-focused universe, started his
>> career both when he was 8 *and* 14? >>
>>
>> No, the present-focused Dick stated h is career at one age, another Dick
>> of an alternate timeline stated his career at another.
>>
>> May I ask you a question. Is whether or not he started his career at 8 or
>> 14, or even if it stated definitively either way, going to make you enjoy
>> Nightwing, The Titans, or the Bat-titles any more or less?
>>
>> And if so, how?
Imagine a real boy did the Robin thing. Pretty ridiculous, I'll admit. At
any rate, most 14 year olds are much more mature then 8 year olds. I think
of feeling embarrassed watching the Olympics where really, really young
girls were doing the gymnastics. I found it horrifying that kids so young
could be so in such high pressure and competive sports. I think the next
Olympics will have an age limit to prevent 11 year olds and so forth from
competing.
An 8-year-old doing what Robin does is also horrifying, IMHO. To go
through seeing such brutality of constant life-and-death fights at such a
young age!
A 14-year-old is still young, but historically it isn't all that uncommon
in really bad times for 14-year-old boys to have to do the work that should
be reserved for grown men.
So, if not just done as colorful, goofy, silly comics for kids, but with in
depth characterization, I think it could make a big difference for what is
going on in Dick Grayson's head if he started at 8 or at 14. I think at
about 8 is when some kids figure out Santa and the Easter Bunny aren't
real! It is so very young I think it couldn't help but really mess up
Dick's thinking! At 14, I think he might cope much better.
Joseph Arendt
P.S. Unlike the subject line, I HATED Hypertime and I STILL HATE
Hypertime.
Radarcom
<<The words "everything is true" pretty much covers the evidence.>>
What about that statement leads you to the conclusion writers are going
to pay less attention to the established facts than before?>>
Because the words "everything is true" is synonymous with "anything goes."
There's no attempt to adhere to any semblence of continuity.
Radarcom
pre-Crisis multiverse was returning), I took it to me everything you have
already read is true, it happened....
And, well... as it DID, I don't see the problem...>>
It's a bigger kitchen sink than just the multiverse. He's thrown in
Elseworlds, Tangent, Captain Carrot and everything published. Every mistake,
every version of every origin, and any possible changes not yet written that
could contradict anything else.
It's like saying all movies exist in the same "fictional universe." Many
projects that are fine by themselves would clash with others. Dirty Harry
meets Shakespeare meets the kids from Porky's meets Aliens meets Adam West
Batman meets Billy Dee Williams Two-Face meets Roger Rabbit.
It's fun for humor stories but DC isn't MAD.
Radarcom
are
*not* true, they did *not* happen. They're comic book stories.>>
But believability and relatability are still facets of fictional stories.
Saving Private Ryan and The Waterboy are both fiction but I don't want to see
The Waterboy offering Tom Hanks some high quality H2O.
For Waid to say everything is true, more accurately, everything is fictional
anyway insults the reader with the obvious. It's especially appalling coming
from a former DC proofreader and self-proclaimed continuity and publishing
history expert.
Radarcom
the problem with hypertime is NOT with the multiple timelines angle.. so
Even despite Crisis, they've already done this with the company crossovers with
Dark Horse and Marvel, et al. There's no need to throw everything together.
Would it make your life story any more amazing to know that in another timeline
you have a counterpart that's a rabbit?
Radarcom
we'll see the mixing-of-timelines aspect of Hypertime all that much -- unless
it's within the context of a finite storyline.>>
Well, they failed miserably. KINGDOM was almost universally panned, at a time
when the comics industry desperately needs new readers. Every other medium
expects the fan to follow continuity with minor mistakes along the way (tv
shows, novel series and movie franchises). What's the appeal when the writers
and artists obviously care much less than the reader? Just because they're
tired of doing research and following continuity doesn't mean that a character
history wouldn't appeal to a new fan. The Secret Files retcons also muddle the
waters. Some 8-year-old kid doesn't want to figure out what the deal is with
varying Batman origins in the past fifteen years of back issues.
Radarcom
Which is why I rooted for Jason Todd's death before there was even a 900
number. Not every circus kid or average kid should be able to do that job.
Tim is more believable since he's more of a prodigy.
Radarcom
into play. We KNOW hypertime did NOT exist in 12/97, and that's an
important distinction in this dicussion. >>
But in the fictional universe(s), the excuse is now that Hypertime was always
there just undiscovered.
Michael Doran
But we KNOW that for what it is...Are you advocating playing "dumb" in
order to support an argument? I'll say it again, we KNOW hypertime did
NOT have a causal relationship with the continuity error that people are
offfering as as evidence as the potential ill-effects of hypertime. It
happened previously and completely independantly of hypertime.
In the context of this discussion, THAT is the relevant point.
m.
Michael Doran
<<Because the words "everything is true" is synonymous with "anything
goes." >>
No it isn't....least not in the context the former statement was made...
m.
Michael Doran
<<Saving Private Ryan and The Waterboy are both fiction but I don't want
to see The Waterboy offering Tom Hanks some high quality H2O.>>
But neither movie offers the concept of time-travel, space travel, and
inter-dimensional travel as a commonplace facet of it's own fictional
setting.
Yes, it would be jarring for the Waterboy to travel back in time to
Saving Prviate Ryan cause not only would this clearly break the rules of
those fictional settings, it would cross genres...
The DCU is NOT that specifically designed however. The DCU emcompasses
many different genres, and the ability to tranverse time, space and
dimensio is commonplace.
So while G'Nort teaming up with Batmanand Jonah Hex to fight the Fatal
Five in the 30th century would most likely be jarring in sort of the same
way as your example above, it violates no rules of continuity or
fictional settings...
<<For Waid to say everything is true, more accurately, everything is
fictional
anyway insults the reader with the obvious.>>
I don't see how...
m.
CATA79
and artists obviously care much less than the reader? Just because they're
tired of doing research and following continuity doesn't mean that a character
history wouldn't appeal to a new fan.>>
This attitude among writers and artist is supposed to be "obvious"? I've yet
to hear of a creator saying, "Yay! Now that we have Hypertime, we can alienate
readers as much as we want!" There's no evidence to support the idea that
Hypertime came about because anyone was tired of researching or following
continuity. Granted, there's no evidence the other way around, either, but
we'll have to wait and see.
<< The Secret Files retcons also muddle the
waters. Some 8-year-old kid doesn't want to figure out what the deal is with
varying Batman origins in the past fifteen years of back issues.>>
Not a big fan of the Secret Files myself, but in their defense, they DO help
new readers jump into a series, even if the character's origin is retconned,
because that's the origin that will be followed (at least until the next retcon
comes along). And retcons are absolutely necessary to keep fresh these
marketing juggernauts known as comics characters. (Would you RATHER Superman
could only LEAP instead of fly? Or would Hal Jordan fans rather Alan Scott was
the first, last, and ONLY Green Lantern?) It would only be a problem if the
8-year-old kid in question went back and bough the last 15 years worth of
Batman comics...
Radarcom
always there just undiscovered.>>
But we KNOW that for what it is...Are you advocating playing "dumb" in
order to support an argument? I'll say it again, we KNOW hypertime did
NOT have a causal relationship with the continuity error that people are
offfering as as evidence as the potential ill-effects of hypertime. It
happened previously and completely independantly of hypertime. >>
Nope. Hypertime, by its nature, is retroactive. It affects not only the past
in the fictional universe but also past mistakes made by past writers. It's a
retroactive fix just as Zero Hour and Crisis were done to affect events prior
to those.
Michael Doran
<<Imagine a real boy did the Robin thing. Pretty ridiculous, I'll admit.
>>
Which in my mind is the most important thing you said in this whole post..
it's all "ridiculous" to start with...
I believe you when you say that this age-difference thing will make a
difference to you in how readily you accept the fictional premise, but I
can also say for sure that at best, you are selectively processing what
you will or won't accept.
Bucky was a teenager who fought along Cap in WWII, is that "realistic"?
Wouldn't by today's standards Cap be considered a child abuser? Now I
know that have explained this in the present day by having Cap say "well,
it was a very different time and place and era". But the point is, we
just have to recognize these little blips as what they are...
I don't need for them to update the origin of their characters and key
moments in history in order to make them appeal to a more modern
sensiblity or update the timeline...
Then you starting getting into the whole "which War did Ben Grimm and
Reed Richards fight in", "which war and jungle was Iron Man born in?",
what decade did those great GL/GA storries take place in...? Though it
wouldn't violate fact, placing those stories in the 90's clearly
compromises the context...
Frankly, the whole "ten year timeline" thing for both major comics
universes for me spits in the face of logic and common sense and kicks it
in the ass... But in the end, it's really not important.
<<So, if not just done as colorful, goofy, silly comics for kids, but
with in
depth characterization, I think it could make a big difference for what
is
going on in Dick Grayson's head if he started at 8 or at 14.>>
So if a Nightwing Secret Files said it was 8, your enjoyment all all
future Nightwing stories would be forever compromised?
michael
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> <<Waid is on record as saying it can cover such flubs in the future.>>
>
> As far as I know, Waid is not on record stating or suggesting it will
> result in more flubs, or is designed to make writers less concerned with
> making them in the first place.
I'm sorry, Mike, but that's an ugly twisting of what I said.
If you can't challenge the actual arguement, admit it.
Don't change it to something else.
Someone please let me know when he wants to be civil again. <G>
It was fun while it lasted.
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> Richard D. Bergstresser Jr. wrote:
>
> >
> > > become a pursuit onto itself, and these readers want these things to make
> > > "sense".
> >
> > Hell, I'm one of them.
>
> you ARE?! geez, what the hell is wrong with you, Rich!!!?
>
> there's obviously something wrong with those people. they're like,
> anal retentive obsessive or something. they must be.....right.....? : )
And proud of it.
>
> (btw, i thought you quit the hivemind, what'sup with saying
> reasonable things?)
Sorry.
Um, how about:
Lobo rocks! But I wish Ron Marz was writing it. :(
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> rada...@aol.com (Radarcom) wrote:
>
> <<Saving Private Ryan and The Waterboy are both fiction but I don't want
> to see The Waterboy offering Tom Hanks some high quality H2O.>>
>
> But neither movie offers the concept of time-travel, space travel, and
> inter-dimensional travel as a commonplace facet of it's own fictional
> setting.
Neither do the Bat-books.
>
> Yes, it would be jarring for the Waterboy to travel back in time to
> Saving Prviate Ryan cause not only would this clearly break the rules of
> those fictional settings, it would cross genres...
What rules? It's all fiction. "It's all TRUE!"
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> "Richard D. Bergstresser Jr." <rich...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> <<Simple. For that statement to be true the established facts carry no
> weight. A writer who truly believes "everything is true" has no reason to
> even
> worry about established facts.>>
>
> I take it as the opposite. I take it as that everything that has been
> published is now regarded as an "established fact". I need not
> distingusihed between the published stories that ae "fact", and the
> published stories that are not.
And neither does a writer need to distinguish between mutually excusive
"facts".
There is no longer ANY continuity.
>
> They're all facts somewhere in a certain timeline somewhere..
Sure. But all in the same timeline?
Who chooses when? How can the reader judge the characters when the
settings and personalities are now so fluid that defining them is
an exercise in futility? There is no longer serial fiction in the DCU.
Now the U is recreated every month. Explicitly. No continuity,
no attachment, no loyalty. Why bother?
> I thought
> the problem with hypertime is NOT with the multiple timelines angle..
Foul. We stated before that the problem wasn't with multiple realities
or
_seperate_ timelines. The problem IS that multiple intermingling
timelines
is logistically equivalent to no timelines.
> <<In certain contexts it cannot all be true. If it IS all true there is
> NO definable context.>>
>
> In context of a universe with infinite timelines, why not?
Stories with no context are merely exercises in tree killing.
>
> <<Again, if ALL stories have equal weight, then, in relative terms, no
> story has ANY weight.>>
>
> Why not? The main DCU timeline is still the main DCU timeline...
Which varies intentionally almost monthly.
> why is
> this any different now than it ever was..?
Because it's an institution now.
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> Hyperttime to me is a no muss, no fuss answer to this very type of issue.
Spin-doctored to: No effort, no concern.
> And I personally think readers who concern themsleves with issue such as
> the careers of most DC heroes not making sense in a 10- year timeline are
> missing something...ot at least focusing on something that is a best a
> distraction and at worst a colossal waste of time.
What, comics?
Quality?
Storytelling?
No one's missing anythin, Michael.
It's just that some of you choose to lower your standards to tolerate
fluff.
Ie, a Batman book isn't a good book to me unless the writer convinces me
that he wants to write _Batman_. That's the core issue.
Hypertyme says all takes on the character are equally valid.
Radarcom
inter-dimensional travel as a commonplace facet of it's own fictional
setting.
Yes, it would be jarring for the Waterboy to travel back in time to
Saving Prviate Ryan cause not only would this clearly break the rules of
those fictional settings, it would cross genres...
The DCU is NOT that specifically designed however. The DCU emcompasses
many different genres, and the ability to tranverse time, space and
dimensio is commonplace. >>
This is what makes Hypertime so sloppy. It transcends the DCU. Its intention
is to make EVERY DC PUBLISHED EVER connected. Captain Carrot wasn't part of
the DCU, nor were the Elseworlds or Tangent or Jerry Lewis comics.
My whole point is that DC has published various genres over the years, many of
which have nothing to do with time and space travel. The cops from the
UNDERWORLD mini-series to the knights of CAMELOT 3000 to Bat-Mite are all true
to each other in Hypertime. Hypertime connects them all.
<<For Waid to say everything is true, more accurately, everything is
fictional anyway insults the reader with the obvious.>>
I don't see how...>>
He's basically saying "hey, it's all fiction anyway" which is overstating the
obvious and picking on readers who would like continuity. If he wants to
disregard what has come before (or toss in into a blender), maybe they can find
another writer who would like the work.
Radarcom
goes." >>
No it isn't....least not in the context the former statement was made...>>
Then the two page spread of various published characters co-existing in KINGDOM
#2 confirms my opinion. They are all connected and are just a doorway away
from one another.
Dan McEwen
> goes." >>
>
> No it isn't....least not in the context the former statement was made...
"It's all true" means that Superboy was Superman as a boy *and* that
Superboy is a clone of Paul Westfield. If Waid hadn't made his example
of connecting timelines on a temporary basis, we wouldn't even be having
this discussion.
Dan McEwen
>
> The 10-year timeline makes the ages of certain characters implausible, at
> the very least>>
>
> Which illustrates why even trying to define such things is an inherent
> and inevitable problem are associated with the type of medium we are
> discussing here...
All it illustrates is that DC has a seriously stupid policy of not
allowing characters to age. I'm not asking for real time, but I am
asking for time to exist beyond an ever-encroaching disaster.
> Hyperttime to me is a no muss, no fuss answer to this very type of issue.
Wait, I thought you weren't advocating it being used for reasons like
Dick Grayson's age?
> And I personally think readers who concern themsleves with issue such as
> the careers of most DC heroes not making sense in a 10- year timeline are
> missing something...ot at least focusing on something that is a best a
> distraction and at worst a colossal waste of time.
Actually, I think the people who look at what they read as mere
"throw-aways" are the ones missing out.
Dan McEwen
> to see The Waterboy offering Tom Hanks some high quality H2O.>>
>
> inter-dimensional travel as a commonplace facet of it's own fictional
> setting.
>
> Yes, it would be jarring for the Waterboy to travel back in time to
> Saving Prviate Ryan cause not only would this clearly break the rules of
> those fictional settings, it would cross genres...
Fine, then use Star Wars and Star Trek. They are, despite both being
intergalactic sci-fi movies/serials, considerably different. Quite
frankly, I don't think either would do well in the reality of the other.
But it it was hypertimed that Captain Kirk was one of the X-Wing Rogue
Squadron in one story, but captain of the Enterprise in another, it
doesn't work. It doesn't even make any sense. But with hypertime, that
very thing could happen when a random hypertimeline connects itself to
another random hypertimeline on a temporary basis.
> <<For Waid to say everything is true, more accurately, everything is
> fictional
> anyway insults the reader with the obvious.>>
>
> I don't see how...
He's saying "I don't know why you idiots get all worked up about this.
The comics still exist. Go back and read them." Then, in a similar
vein, he says "But anything you read in those books, from super-Krypto
to Superman almost dating Helen of Troy, is true, because that
particular hypertime could have briefly connected."
CATA79
order to support an argument? I'll say it again, we KNOW hypertime did
NOT have a causal relationship with the continuity error that people are
offfering as as evidence as the potential ill-effects of hypertime. It
happened previously and completely independantly of hypertime. >>
<<<Nope. Hypertime, by its nature, is retroactive. It affects not only the
past
in the fictional universe but also past mistakes made by past writers. It's a
retroactive fix just as Zero Hour and Crisis were done to affect events prior
to those.>>>
Those of us living in the REAL world realize that Hypertime could not possibly
have CAUSED a continuity error that occurred before the writers conceived of
Hypertime. It's a way to EXPLAIN past mistakes, but it can't actually have
CAUSED the past mistake (except from the characters' point of view, of
course...)
To use the explaining away of a past mistake as an example of Hypertime causing
future mistakes is, well, quite ridiculous.
Michael R. Grabois ... change $ to s
>Michael Doran wrote:
>>
>> "Richard D. Bergstresser Jr." <rich...@erols.com> wrote:
>>
>> <<Simple. For that statement to be true the established facts carry no
>> weight. A writer who truly believes "everything is true" has no reason to
>> even
>> worry about established facts.>>
>>
>> I take it as the opposite. I take it as that everything that has been
>> published is now regarded as an "established fact". I need not
>> distingusihed between the published stories that ae "fact", and the
>> published stories that are not.
>
>OK, I see. Dick Grayson, of the present-focused universe, started his
>career both when he was 8 *and* 14?
Yes. He's both a dessert topping AND a floor wax.
--
Michael R. Grabois | http://chili.cjb.net
Houston, TX | $pac...@wt.net (change $ to "s")
"People say losing builds character. That's the stupidest thing I ever
heard. All losing does is suck. " -- Charles Barkley, 9/29/96
Michael Doran
>>Waid is on record as saying it can cover such flubs in the future.<<
<< As far as I know, Waid is not on record stating or suggesting it will
result in more flubs, or is designed to make writers less concerned with
making them in the first place. >>
<<I'm sorry, Mike, but that's an ugly twisting of what I said. If you
can't challenge the actual arguement, admit it. Don't change it to
something else.>>
I didn't suggest you said that Rich, that was my RESPONSE, not my
restating of your point... As far as I can tell, I've have been arguing
against the subposition that hypertime will "open the flood gates" to
wholesale disregard for continuity, or be the direct CAUSE of MORE
continuity flubs in the future.
You stated that it can cover continuity flubs in the future...I
completely agree with I don't see it as germaine to the SPECIFIC issue
being discussed for the last 36 hours. I thought I have been clear that
I think hypertime can be used to cover past and future continuity errors.
I've been arguing that there is no evidence to suggest it will CAUSE them.
My response was my attempt to redirect the argument to where I think the
actual disagreement lies...
In other words, that hypertime can cover continuity flubs on the future
does support the fact that it will result in more of them. That was the
point I was making. I might have not done that well, but there was no
insidcious intent, I assure you...
m.
Michael Doran
<<Nope. Hypertime, by its nature, is retroactive. It affects not only
the past
in the fictional universe but also past mistakes made by past writers.
It's a
retroactive fix just as Zero Hour and Crisis were done to affect events
prior
to those.>>
Simply put, no fictional story device retroactu\ively caused Mark Waid to
make a continuity error based on anything but how he originally made it.
Hypertime did NOT cause the Blackhawks error...
if you can't see that, I'm done trying to explain it...
m.
Michael Doran
<<My whole point is that DC has published various genres over the years,
many of which have nothing to do with time and space travel. The cops
from the UNDERWORLD mini-series to the knights of CAMELOT 3000 to Bat-
Mite are all true to each other in Hypertime. Hypertime connects them
all. \>>
Okay, so what.. what about that suggestion is so threatening? Shoudn't we
be concering ourselves over pragmatic issues...? I offered an example of
a story that hypertime would theoritically makes possible, does that
automatically mean we must expect (and fear) that particular story?
Just because something is possible, it doesn't make it likely. I really
don't think I'm ever going to see a G'Nort/Batman/Jonah Hex team-up in
the 30th century despite the fact that it's now "possible". Which I think
is rather the point here...and why readers like me sometimes regard
readers like yourself as obsessive and alarmists...
It seems to me that it's not enough that for the most part the DCU will
likely remain much like it was pre-Crisis, with crossovers between
hypertimelines remaining somewhat reasonable and logical, i.e. Superboy
meeting Superboy, etc.. but you also seem to need a "RULE" in place to
assure that something that likely will never happen or have reason to
happen, won't. That's where the obsessive part comes in?
Can Sugar and Spike and Captain Carrot now team-up with Sandman and
Spider Jerusalem? Yes, I guess that's possible. Does anyone actually
expect or fear this or anything like it happening?
<<He's basically saying "hey, it's all fiction anyway" which is
overstating the
obvious and picking on readers who would like continuity. >>
I think he made a VERY POINTED statement aimed at those he thinks take
continuity for the sake of contiuity too seriously, and I applaud him for
it.
<<If he wants to disregard what has come before (or toss in into a
blender), maybe they can find another writer who would like the work.>>
I don't think someone who was interested in disregarding what has become
before would have made the effort to make EVERYTHING that has come before
much more accessible than it was pre-hypertime.
m.
Michael Doran
<<They are all connected and are just a doorway away from one another.>>
As they in reality always were.. Hows does this translate to "anything
goes"?
m.
Michael Doran
<< But neither movie offers the concept of time-travel, space travel,
and
inter-dimensional travel as a commonplace facet of it's own fictional
setting.>>
<<Neither do the Bat-books.>>
Stylistic choice... we both know if it did it would be consistent within
the confines of DCU continuity....
<<Yes, it would be jarring for the Waterboy to travel back in time to
Saving Prviate Ryan cause not only would this clearly break the rules of
those fictional settings, it would cross genres...>>
<<What rules? It's all fiction. "It's all TRUE!">>
DC Comics for the most part are about boundless possiblities, about time,
interdimension, and space travel. They are about the FANTASTIC and the
impossible.
This does not appy to Saving Private Ryan and the Waterboy. The point is
not that "ALL fiction is true", the point is all the stories published by
DC Comics in their storied history "are true". If you're going to apply
the slippery slope argument, fine, but I think we can confine that to
comics and more specifically DC Comics.. can't we?
m.
Michael Doran
<<And neither does a writer need to distinguish between mutually
excusive
"facts". There is no longer ANY continuity.>>
Why can't writers simply distinguish between separate "sets of facts", or
"sets of continuity", i.e. disticntive timelines... I'm not expecting a
wholesale melding of timelines wihout care, reason or order, are you?
>>They're all facts somewhere in a certain timeline somewhere.. <<
<<Sure. But all in the same timeline?>>
It's possible, but I don't get the impression that the intent.
<<Who chooses when?>>
Writer and editor obviously...
<< How can the reader judge the characters when the settings and
personalities are now so fluid that defining them is an exercise in
futility? >>
Again, IMHO yu are confusing theoritically possible with probable. I'm
not expecting the DC's standard M.O. in regards to these issues is going
to change significantly as a result of this. Maybe I'm in the minority,
but I'm not expecting chaos.
Does hypertime have a potential downside? Sure. Do I think the upside is
MUCH more likely to be exploited than the downside? Yes.
<<Foul. We stated before that the problem wasn't with multiple realities
or seperate_ timelines. The problem IS that multiple intermingling
timelines
is logistically equivalent to no timelines.>>
This is like saying that because cultures in the USA can intermingle,
that all distinct cultures will soon be eradicated and will eventually
lead to one big instinguisable uni-culture. I THINK it's possible for
these timelines to intermingle on occasion without compromising their
distinctiveness.
<<Stories with no context are merely exercises in tree killing.>>
I know who and what the JLA are and why I read it. Nothing that happened
n the Kingdom changed that for me... All the DCU books I read still have
context. Again, I think the point if the context of your montly pulls is
entirely dependent on something that happened in the Kingdom #2, there is
context that you might be missing.
<<Which varies intentionally almost monthly.>>
It does, more than it ever has before? Can you illustrate this for me?
m.
Michael Doran
>> Hyperttime to me is a no muss, no fuss answer to this very type of
issue.<<
<<Spin-doctored to: No effort, no concern.>>
So you want to see what a demostrative effort? Okay, how? Use the
infamous Blackhawks example as your template... How should DC now handle
this that will show you proper effort?
<<What, comics? Quality? Storytelling? No one's missing anythin, Michael.
It's just that some of you choose to lower your standards to tolerate
fluff.>>
I would hope that a reader who was only familar with Batman generally
would be able to pick up Killing Joke, or Dark Knight Returns, or even
NML, and recognize the quality in the storytelling, to enjoy the craft in
the writing, to get enjoyment out of THAT story without having ANY idea
where the story fit in some greater meta-fictional whole and whether or
not it was consistent with whatever. This is my point. THIS to me is what
is good about comics. STORIES. Beginning, middles and ends, dialogue,
pacing, characterization, ideas, themes, climaxes, plot twists, etc... To
me these aspects of storytelling are not given the proper and
proportionate attention "continuity" is.
And maybe I shouldn't expect it to. I've heard people say comics are soap
operas for 9 to 31 year old men. And I imagine the reason a good deal of
soap operas audiences tune in is not for the quality of the storytelling,
but to find out what happens next, to follow along with the serial aspect
of them.
When it comes to serial storytelling, I think maybe the "serial" part has
unfortunately eclisped the "storytelling" part...
<<Ie, a Batman book isn't a good book to me unless the writer convinces
me
>that he wants to write _Batman_. That's the core issue. Hypertyme says
all takes on the character are equally valid.>>
No, hypertime says all takes on the character are valid (i can't imagine
anyone regarding this asa bad thing), nothing about hypertime suggests
that the current incarnation of a character is still NOT the priority.
I'm going to assume he Superman who shows up in 7 or eight titles a month
is still the one who has priority in the DCU. Am I wrong to assume that?
m.
Michael Doran
<<All it illustrates is that DC has a seriously stupid policy of not
allowing characters to age. I'm not asking for real time, but I am
asking for time to exist beyond an ever-encroaching disaster.>>
Neither does Marvel. but point taken, I have no argument with this...
<<Wait, I thought you weren't advocating it being used for reasons like
Dick Grayson's age?>>
I'm not advocating it "being used" for anything. *I* don't need
explanations for such things, but as I also believe the point of
hypertime is to be a ever-present non-instrusive, non-dictating
suggestion on how to look at existing inconsistencies, so I would have no
problem if a writer choosed to use it in this way...
Not sure where I gave you that impression, but please feel free to remind
me. I'm trying to hold up my end of the conversation with like 5
different people people, and it's all starting to blend...
<<Actually, I think the people who look at what they read as mere "throw-
aways" are the ones missing out.>>
I tend to sense a certain level of frustration and dissastifaction that
seems more inherent to those who indentify themselves as "continuity
fans". I know this is going to sound sarcastic, but if that's what I'm
"missing out on", well... good.
I'm generally very sastified with the comics I buy and read, if that
makes me an indiscriminate ignoramus, well the I suppose ignorance truly
is bliss...
michael
Michael Doran
<<"It's all true" means that Superboy was Superman as a boy *and* that
Superboy is a clone of Paul Westfield. If Waid hadn't made his example
of connecting timelines on a temporary basis, we wouldn't even be having
this discussion.>>
No, "it' all true" in context means every story you've read between the
pages of a DC comic are true, somewhere....
I for one don't get the impression that this statement meant that any
possibility that anyone can ever think of is "true". I get the impression
that every story accepted by a DC editor and deemed worthy of publication
are "true...."
m.
Michael Doran
<<Fine, then use Star Wars and Star Trek. They are, despite both being
intergalactic sci-fi movies/serials, considerably different. Quite
frankly, I don't think either would do well in the reality of the other.
>>
Right, which would make a crossover highly unlikely, even if Lucas would
be willing, which he is not.
Now this is the important point. What about hypertime suggests that DC
editors will stop exercising the kind of judgement that we both used to
decide that your above example would clearly be a mistake.
Does hypertime allow them to do this kind of thing. For the 100th time,
YES. Does it make it more likely or probable... I don't think so...
*I* don't need to RULE the prohibits a SW/ST x-over, I don't need a
fictional barrier preventing it. I'm secure with the probability that it
will never happen because it's not a good idea, NOT because they aren't
"allowed".
Nothing about hypertime compromises that security, for me anyway. Again,
possible does not equal probable.
m.
BHMarks
>Beginning, middles and ends, dialogue,
>pacing, characterization, ideas, themes, climaxes, plot twists, etc...
Um, are we allowed to like all this stuff and continuity TOO, Michael?
They are not mutually exclusive - any more than any one of the things on your
list excludes the others.
(Although some people will tell you that characterization screws up plots like
mad - you can just never get the characters to do what the story requires and
still maintain characterization. So - screw characterization!)
As ever,
Bennet
Joseph T. Arendt
In a previous article, XZY...@prodigy.com (Michael Doran) says:
>(Joseph T. Arendt) wrote:
>
><<Imagine a real boy did the Robin thing. Pretty ridiculous, I'll admit.
>>>
>
>Which in my mind is the most important thing you said in this whole post..
> it's all "ridiculous" to start with...
How "ridiculous" varies with different comics and stories. It is a big
part of why I like some DC Comics and not others.
>I believe you when you say that this age-difference thing will make a
>difference to you in how readily you accept the fictional premise, but I
>can also say for sure that at best, you are selectively processing what
>you will or won't accept.
Of course I selectively process what I will or won't accept. Superman's
turned into Blue-perman? I won't accept that. I'll not buy Superman
until that mess is over with! :-) An earthquake in Gotham? Eh, worth
a look in a cheap bin. (Better than I expected, BTW!)
>Bucky was a teenager who fought along Cap in WWII, is that "realistic"?
>Wouldn't by today's standards Cap be considered a child abuser? Now I
>know that have explained this in the present day by having Cap say "well,
>it was a very different time and place and era". But the point is, we
>just have to recognize these little blips as what they are...
>
>I don't need for them to update the origin of their characters and key
>moments in history in order to make them appeal to a more modern
>sensiblity or update the timeline...
>
>Then you starting getting into the whole "which War did Ben Grimm and
>Reed Richards fight in", "which war and jungle was Iron Man born in?",
>what decade did those great GL/GA storries take place in...? Though it
>wouldn't violate fact, placing those stories in the 90's clearly
>compromises the context...
>
>Frankly, the whole "ten year timeline" thing for both major comics
>universes for me spits in the face of logic and common sense and kicks it
>in the ass... But in the end, it's really not important.
>
><<So, if not just done as colorful, goofy, silly comics for kids, but
>with in
>depth characterization, I think it could make a big difference for what
>is
>going on in Dick Grayson's head if he started at 8 or at 14.>>
>
>So if a Nightwing Secret Files said it was 8, your enjoyment all all
>future Nightwing stories would be forever compromised?
>
>michael
No, that's overstating it. It would affect how I precieve Dick
Grayson, and Bruce Wayne, if Dick started at 8 or if he started at
14. I could enjoy stories done either way, it is just that I
regard the characters differently.
Put it this way, I liked Bryne's Superman and I liked Christopher Reeve's
movie Superman. They are both fundamentally Superman, but they in many
ways are also different characters. I can enjoy reading a Bryne comic or
watching the first two movies. Yet, I preceive the characters of Superman
as different. They are different media, so I expect and tolerate
differences. One is movie Superman, one is comic-book Superman.
Here is an example from Superman comic books to stay in the same media.
When I was a kid, Superman's adoptive parents were very clearly and
definitively DEAD! Ma and Pa Kent were KAPUT! It was part of the myth.
There were some decent stories dealing with that...as well, frankly, as
some not so decent stories. No matter what, they were Dee Eee Aye Dee.
Since the Bryne-reboot, Ma and Pa Kent are still alive and well. The
characters are WONDERFUL in the comic. I certainly don't wish them dead.
How they react with Lois and so forth adds much charm to the comics.
I can like stories told in both scenarios...but not that jump between them
without rhyme or reason. Prior to Hypertime, I had a clear demarcation of
which was which. Here I am reading a Seventies comic about Earth-1
Superman and for him his adoptive parents are dead. Here, I'm reading an
early Nineties post-Crisis comic and Superman's adoptive parents are not
dead. They are different characters with many similarities.
I precieve Superman as somewhat different if he has had BOTH sets
of parents die on him or if he still has his adoptive parents alive
and well. Either situation makes for a good character, just a different
one.
However, now make it so Ma and Pa Kent are like Schroeginger's cat.
They are half-dead and half-alive. Since some stories in the past
had them as alive and others as dead, we'll make them all true.
For any particular future story, the writer can have them alive
or dead as he chooses. One writer has the parents dead for a story
and a few months later a different writer has the parents alive.
It's be pretty darn confusing and schizophrenic. Ah, but there
are an infinite number of merging and diverging Hypertime lines
so times lines with Ma and Pa alive or dead can pop in or out.
I'd much prefer that DC Comics have a Crisis or Zero Hour or something
every decade or so. The big changes would happen then, such as changing
which war a character fought in or other big changes. Between these big
events, continuity mistakes would be MISTAKES!
For Dick Grayson, if it is decreed that he started at EIGHT, then
let it be so from now until the next big housecleaning. If it is
decreed that he started at FOURTEEN, then let THAT be so from
now until the next big housecleaning. If he hops back and forth
by different writers', or even the same writer's whim, it comes across
to me as lazy writing by people who can't be bothered to respect
the stories told before.
Joseph Arendt
CATA79
anyone regarding this asa bad thing), nothing about hypertime suggests
that the current incarnation of a character is still NOT the priority.
I'm going to assume he Superman who shows up in 7 or eight titles a month
is still the one who has priority in the DCU. Am I wrong to assume that?>>
No.
(Been enjoying your well-reasoned posts, Michael.)
Crisis of Infinte Coyles
>
> rada...@aol.com (Radarcom) wrote:
>
> <<Nope. Hypertime, by its nature, is retroactive. It affects not only
> the past
> in the fictional universe but also past mistakes made by past writers.
> It's a
> retroactive fix just as Zero Hour and Crisis were done to affect events
> prior
> to those.>>
>
> Simply put, no fictional story device retroactu\ively caused Mark Waid to
> make a continuity error based on anything but how he originally made it.
> Hypertime did NOT cause the Blackhawks error...
>
--Dan
Dan McEwen
> I tend to sense a certain level of frustration and dissastifaction that
> seems more inherent to those who indentify themselves as "continuity
> fans". I know this is going to sound sarcastic, but if that's what I'm
> "missing out on", well... good.
>
> I'm generally very sastified with the comics I buy and read, if that
> makes me an indiscriminate ignoramus, well the I suppose ignorance truly
> is bliss...
Actually, I'm pretty much satisfied with what I read, too. I don't read
the stuff that holds no appeal. But that's really not the point here.
We're discussing theoretical applications of hypertime and its potential
to make DC as coninuous as Archie Comics (at, admittedly, its worst
extreme).
Dan McEwen
>
> rada...@aol.com (Radarcom) wrote:
>
> <<Nope. Hypertime, by its nature, is retroactive. It affects not only
> the past
> in the fictional universe but also past mistakes made by past writers.
> It's a
> retroactive fix just as Zero Hour and Crisis were done to affect events
> prior
> to those.>>
>
> Simply put, no fictional story device retroactu\ively caused Mark Waid to
> make a continuity error based on anything but how he originally made it.
> Hypertime did NOT cause the Blackhawks error...
>
Um, no one said Mark made the decision THEN, but has since decided to
take a mistake he made and explain it NOW with hypertime.
Dan McEwen
>
> Dan McEwen <fe...@lsh.org> wrote:
>
> <<"It's all true" means that Superboy was Superman as a boy *and* that
> Superboy is a clone of Paul Westfield. If Waid hadn't made his example
> of connecting timelines on a temporary basis, we wouldn't even be having
> this discussion.>>
>
> No, "it' all true" in context means every story you've read between the
> pages of a DC comic are true, somewhere....
You ignored my major point. Waid said that various hypertimelines can
connect and disconnect at whim. THAT is the thing that has some of us
worried.
Dan McEwen
> intergalactic sci-fi movies/serials, considerably different. Quite
> frankly, I don't think either would do well in the reality of the other.
> >>
>
> Right, which would make a crossover highly unlikely, even if Lucas would
> be willing, which he is not.
>
> Now this is the important point. What about hypertime suggests that DC
> editors will stop exercising the kind of judgement that we both used to
> decide that your above example would clearly be a mistake.
What makes me think that? In the previous multiverse, characters could
crossover and visit other universes. In the current hypertime system,
other universes can themselves crossover and meld, perhaps on a
temporary basis, with the main universe.
Actually, I suggest that the melding of the five remaining Earth's
during Crisis was the first such hypertiming, but which was permanent
(though that's arguable).