The Multiverse supposedly returning
JWo...@mail.fc.peachnet.edu
multiverse is coming back. I wanna know where you're getting this information,
because it sure as fuck isn't in Wizard magazine.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
rtl...@hamlet.uncg.edu
JWo...@mail.fc.peachnet.edu wrote:
> Ok, ok people are talking like you know for a fact that the pre-crisis
> multiverse is coming back. I wanna know where you're getting this information,
> because it sure as fuck isn't in Wizard magazine.
I'm not sure how pre-crisis the multiverse will be but people have sighted
several writers on this (but where they got the quotes from I don't know).
For tangible hints at the multiverse pick up the latest issue of previews and
read the articles on The Kingdom and on the Legend of the DCU Crisis special
(featuring Alternate Earthes never seen before). Hell, even the new Flash
story line about villian going back in time to kill Barry Allen seems like
too much of a coincidence not to be tied in in some way. I haven't seen the
issue myself (I doubt my shop even ordered any) but someone on here said the
JLA in Crisis Secret FIles had the terms Earth 1 and Earth 2 in them. I
would say all the alternate timelines (when their's only supposed to one
timeline now) we've seen in stories over the past couple years are hints but
in the DCU I would rack it up to confused editors.
Alan David Doane
>>>Ok, ok people are talking like you know for a fact that the pre-crisis
>>>multiverse is coming back. I wanna know where you're getting this information,
>>>because it sure as fuck isn't in Wizard magazine.
>>>
That would seem to lend credence to the theory, would it not?
Alan
The Crooked Man
> Ok, ok people are talking like you know for a fact that the pre-crisis
>
> multiverse is coming back. I wanna know where you're getting this
> information,
> because it sure as fuck isn't in Wizard magazine.
>
>
As I've said elsewhere, Chuck Dixon told me, at a street fair at a comic
book store in Newark, DE, not more than a few weeks ago, that once DC
1,000,000 and the Kingdom had run their course, everything ever
published by DC (including the contradictory stuff) would be
in-continuity. I can't imagine that this would imply the return of the
pre-Crisis Multiverse exactly, but this does seem to mean that the
events depicted in those universes will be valid. Given what's happened
since Crisis they can't just all of a sudden "go back", but some new
structure is going to be established (or so he told me).
Edward Mathews
: Ok, ok people are talking like you know for a fact that the pre-crisis
: multiverse is coming back. I wanna know where you're getting this information,
: because it sure as fuck isn't in Wizard magazine.
A) No one said the pre-Crisis Multiverse was coming back, only that the
Crisis and what we have been exposed to as the multiverse will be in
continuity and that some form of multiverse is on the horizon. B) You're
using Wizard as your source of comic book info?
Ed (heh) Mathews
*****
**-----
* ---
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://pages.nyu.edu/~em11
Voting has begun on rec.arts.sf.superman -- Vote now!
Dan McEwen
>Ok, ok people are talking like you know for a fact that the pre-crisis
>multiverse is coming back. I wanna know where you're getting this information,
>because it sure as fuck isn't in Wizard magazine.
Hmm...OK, let's look at this. In LEGION OF SUPER-HEROES, Superman is
known only as a legend. No mention whatsoever of a Superman Dynasty.
When Superboy first met the Legion, they all thought he was Superman
as a boy until he told them otherwise. Yes, in DC1M, Superboy has had
clones consistently from the 20th century through the 853rd. And then
there's the more blatant reference to Gog killing Superman in the 21st
century made by Waverider. When you put these all together, they
appear to spell "multiverse".
PatDOneill
>From: fe...@lsh.org (Dan McEwen)
>When you put these all together, they
>appear to spell "multiverse".
>
>
Or, perhaps they spell "we'll use what we need to tell a good story right now;
hang the anal retentives who insist that every little piece fit together
neatly. We're telling stories, not doing jigsaw puzzles."
Best, Pat
The words and opinions expressed are those of Patrick Daniel O'Neill and do not
represent the opinions or policies of WIZARD: THE GUIDE TO COMICS.
Aaron Michael Newton
:
: Or, perhaps they spell "we'll use what we need to tell a good story right now;
: hang the anal retentives who insist that every little piece fit together
: neatly. We're telling stories, not doing jigsaw puzzles."
Pat, do you feel it absolutely necesarry ot insult everyone who disagrees
with you in every post you make?
On the topic of the multiverse, people are only trying to piece together the
hints of what is to come that have been thrown their way. We've had hints
in stories, we've had writers dropping hints, we've had writers POITING OUT
HINTS IN THE FREAKING COMICS.
And you have the nerve to act like people who are attempting to make sense
of these things are some extremist movement who annoy the writers involved
because they are actually BITING at the hints and innuendo?
Pat, THIS is why the hints and foreshadowing have been laid down. We are
*supposed* to speculate. We are *supposed* to wonder. It's like trying to
figure out who the killer is in a mystery novel. IT'S PART OF THE FREAKING
SHOW.
-Aaron
--
Aaron Newton / amne...@homer.louisville.edu / 1:1 (TINTC) <*> IRC:FigNewton
VARTOX
patdo...@aol.comnospam (PatDOneill) wrote:
>>From: fe...@lsh.org (Dan McEwen)
>
>>When you put these all together, they
>>appear to spell "multiverse".
>>
>>
>
>Or, perhaps they spell "we'll use what we need to tell a good story right
>now;
>hang the anal retentives who insist that every little piece fit together
>neatly. We're telling stories, not doing jigsaw puzzles."
Is it truly retentive to expect stories from a company which has attempted to
redefine itself via Crisis and Zero Hour (and possibly some other series that
I've missed) in terms of a single, unified, coherent continuity to adhere to
said company's objectives?
Whether it is or is not, why such hostility? After all, if the stories are
good in your opinion, why does anyone else's opinion matter?
Of course, from my viewpoint, both continuity and storytelling have gone so far
from desirable that I stopped buying comics once Superman's original
powers/costume returned without a satisfactory explanation. That was the last
straw in terms of storytelling. Byrne's intro of Hippolyta as WW in World War
II put me over the edge in terms of continuity.
And frankly, though I've been following discussions of several storylines here,
nothing I've read has made me want to pick up a new comic since Superman
Forever. The only comic I've purchased since was the reprint of Giant Superman
Annual #1.
Of course, that admission probably brands me as retentive in some respect...
Vartox (who, incidentally, wonders that if a multiverse does come into being as
many expect, will there be an apology issued for the "anal retentive" slur?)
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://members.aol.com/vartox/jwgroth.html
Drew Melbourne
: Or, perhaps they spell "we'll use what we need to tell a good story right now;
: hang the anal retentives who insist that every little piece fit together
: neatly. We're telling stories, not doing jigsaw puzzles."
??? Um, how stupid do you have to be to not see the following logic:
1) multiple futures have been shown
2) this was on purpose
ergo,
3) they are showing us that there are multiple futures
You've been defending a lax-continuity position for too long, Pat.
I'm not even sure you know what you're defending anymore.
--
Drew Melbourne, melb...@sas.upenn.edu, http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~melbourn
-->>NOW ALSO AVAILABLE AT "melb...@dept.english.upenn.edu"!!!<<--
"Who paved the road to Hell, anyway?" -- Anonymous
MIKESANG
It's insulting to say that people who demand internal consistency in comics are
anal retentive. It's also insulting to say "we're telling stories, not doing
jigsaw puzzles." If a writer is incapable of telling a story that is consistent
with the past, then he is in the wrong business. Otherwise, anything is
possible in a story and therefore there is no drama. Remember the Bugs Bunny
cartoons where Bugs just pulls a shotgun out of nowhere and blows off Daffy
Duck's head (and daffy is fine a moment later) that's the result of anarchy.
It's funny and it's fine, but not in otherwise serious comics. I demand writers
be consistent with previously published stories.
Nick Eden
>century made by Waverider. When you put these all together, they
>appear to spell "multiverse".
To be fair, you're putting 2 and 2 together and making 17. They spell
"inconsistency" or possibly even "paradox".
-------------------------------------------------
Driving for Loons
The American Southwest: Too many miles in too few days
http://www.pheasnt.demon.co.uk/Driving.html
NYSteve11
In article <19981003161028...@ng77.aol.com>, mike...@aol.com
(MIKESANG) writes:
>It's funny and it's fine, but not in otherwise serious comics. I demand
>writers
>be consistent with previously published stories.
>
Serious comics?
Like Green Lantern....or Wonder Woman..or Martian Manhunter....etc..etc...
"Serious"Steve Wacker
Dan McEwen
wrote:
>
>>From: fe...@lsh.org (Dan McEwen)
>
>>When you put these all together, they
>>appear to spell "multiverse".
>Or, perhaps they spell "we'll use what we need to tell a good story right now;
>hang the anal retentives who insist that every little piece fit together
>neatly. We're telling stories, not doing jigsaw puzzles."
OK, Pat, and just who is so anal retentive? Yeah, I see a few posts
like "how did Superman use the GL ring?", but for me -- who generally
believes in continuity -- I didn't see a problem. I also see Kyle as
generally more intelligent in JLA than in GL. Is it a problem? Nope.
Come back when you have something interesting to say.
Dan McEwen
ni...@pheasnt.dont_spam_me.demon.co.uk (Nick Eden) wrote:
>On 3 Oct 1998 06:12:36 GMT, fe...@lsh.org (Dan McEwen) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 02 Oct 1998 13:50:27 GMT, JWo...@mail.fc.peachnet.edu wrote:
>>
>>>Ok, ok people are talking like you know for a fact that the pre-crisis
>>>multiverse is coming back. I wanna know where you're getting this information,
>>>because it sure as fuck isn't in Wizard magazine.
>>
>>Hmm...OK, let's look at this. In LEGION OF SUPER-HEROES, Superman is
>>known only as a legend. No mention whatsoever of a Superman Dynasty.
>>When Superboy first met the Legion, they all thought he was Superman
>>as a boy until he told them otherwise. Yes, in DC1M, Superboy has had
>>clones consistently from the 20th century through the 853rd. And then
>>there's the more blatant reference to Gog killing Superman in the 21st
>>century made by Waverider. When you put these all together, they
>>appear to spell "multiverse".
>
>To be fair, you're putting 2 and 2 together and making 17. They spell
>"inconsistency" or possibly even "paradox".
Until I remember that more than one writer has said that, following
KINGDOM and DC1M, "every story ever published will be in-continuity".
Then I realize "paradox" is the wrong word.
Aaron Mojo
>>When you put these all together, they
>>appear to spell "multiverse".
Or, "writing inconsistencies," but I'd ALMOST think that DC knew better than
to get themselves into THAT again. ALMOST.
-Aaron!
(They may have just decided they don't care though, and this "multiverse" thing
will just slowly develop -- like it did before -- and DC won't bother to
acknowledge it unless they HAVE to. If they set it up just to do another
Crisis in the next couple years... THAT would suck.)
I'd like to take this opportunity to say that Jericho sucked. He was just
ugly. So was Pariah.
D.K. Russo
a posting every month or so,I'd like to add my input from reading all
the posts....
1)It's not 'The Multiverse' as we knew pre-crisis,returning,it's 'A
Mulitverse' with as far known as Earth-Prime,Earth-Kingdom (A New Earth
2 but not Earth 2?),Earth-Tangent and although not offical but there
Earth-Marvel.
2)'Hypertime' is what it's beening called in the SUPERBOY books that
will feature
it. Hypertime implies possible futures,and
maybe possible pasts!
3)If everything with be part of a 'sort of' Continuity,Pre-Crisis,and
Elesworlds-then
'Hypertime' explains it-alternate pasts/alternate futures....not
co-existing,but once/possible existing...
side by side!
4)This would mean,outside of the 3 DC-Universe Earths,the others exist
in alternate time-lines and not dimentions!
Thus can exist!
So,what we have is-
Multiverse-
DC Prime
DC Kingdom
DC Tangent
(Marvel)
Hypertime-
(Which is an offshoot of DC Prime!)
Pre-Crisis (Many)
Elseworlds (Many)
Imaginary Tales (Many)
While this doesn't mean the pre-crisis multiverse still exists-this just
means it DID exist! We know the Waverider and the LM know for fact-it
happened! They have a record of the TRUE Crisis!
All that's going to happen in continuity will be most likely the
following...
MULTIVERSE-The DC Earths with a single past/present/future in current
timelines! KINGDOM is That Future,
PRIME is one Earth past and DC1M future.and TANGENT is it's own history.
HYPERTIME-The acceptance that the original Multiverse Exisited with a
history and past-but no future,save perhaps the
Time-Trappers meddling with the Legions!
The Mulitverse Died in Crisis 5 years ago!
There is no future for those worlds! As for ELSEWHERE-those worlds still
someplace in Alternate Hypertime,but then again,they always did,now they
will be just linked to the DC Universe. (Perhaps becuase of repercusions
of KINGDOM and CRISIS!)
That's just my thoughts!
-dkr
thefeli...@my-dejanews.com
"G.Haire" <ha...@sinesurf.co.nz> wrote:
> I may have misunderstood you but the way I see it is that Kingdom is one of
> many POSSIBLE futures, not THE future.
>
I think you misunderstood-as I read it-he's refuring to KINGDOM as the
FUTURE to EARTH-Kingdom and not Earth-Prime
-tfk
> D.K. Russo wrote in message
> <28496-36...@newsd-162.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Dan McEwen
wrote:
>
>>>When you put these all together, they
>>>appear to spell "multiverse".
>
> Or, "writing inconsistencies," but I'd ALMOST think that DC knew better than
>to get themselves into THAT again. ALMOST.
I guess it could spell that without the outside knowledge that some
sort of multiverse is coming back.
Dan McEwen
wrote:
>I may have misunderstood you but the way I see it is that Kingdom is one of
>many POSSIBLE futures, not THE future.
That's also how I see DC1M.
Chris Juricich
>
> I guess it could spell that without the outside knowledge that some
> sort of multiverse is coming back.
Well, the current Diamond Previews has some promos in it stating that such
a thing is on the way a few months down the road. As I mentioned elsewhere
(elseworld?)...
whatever.
All I care about are good comics. I could give a tiny shit about continuity.
--
Chris Juricich
Berzerkeley, CA
G.Haire
many POSSIBLE futures, not THE future.
David W. Stepp
juri...@jps.net (Chris Juricich) wrote:
> All I care about are good comics. I could give a tiny shit about continuity.
Then you don't understand the medium. This statement is analagous to:
I just want to drive my car. I could give a shit about oil, gas or tires.
It's true there are people who drive their entire lifes with no real
understanding of how their car works and their perfectly happy and no one
begrudges them that. However, they can't expect to be taken seriously when
they want to hold forth on some issue related to cars outside their
experience.
No one has ever said comics were about continuity. They have said (and
I say so too) that when you attract my attention with a charcter I enjoy,
you need to respect the aspects that make me enjoy that chaarcter if you
want to continue to get my money. A large part of that aspect is the
history of that character. Comics cannot surive on continuity alone any
more than a car would run with tires and no gas.
Finally, one can have relatively continuity free comics. Elseworld are
printed with a minimum of detail (Though even then usually follow on
something) and a wide array of character variations. DC prints them all
the time and you are welcome to them. However, the fact that they don't
outnumber "in continuity" stuff argues that that at least in the current
market, people who care about continuity outnumber those who don't. You
must ergo expect DC to continue trying to satisfy the majority of it's
customers.
D.
CheeksMite
David:
Y'know... I've been sitting out this combination "Continuity Wars/Let's
All Pile Onto O'Neill"thing; just kinda sorta content to hang back, and duck
the occasional white-hot bit o' shrapnel whizzing overhead, and whatnot...
... but: I (personally) find the following very nearly as offensive as
anything even *O'Neill* has said, thus far:
>> All I care about are good comics. I could give a tiny shit about
>continuity.
>
> Then you don't understand the medium.
My undying thanks for spray-painting anyone who might think that
"continuity" is a more overrated commodity than (say) Plot; Dialogue;
Characterization; or Theme as an ignorant know-nothing. That was really swell
of you. ;-p
>the fact that they don't
>outnumber "in continuity" stuff argues that that at least in the current
>market, people who care about continuity outnumber those who don't.
... and (again: IMHO) using today's "sales" -- poor, pitiful, anemic
things that they are -- to justify virtually *any* aspect of how the companies
are doing things Right Here, Right Now doesn't do your counter-argument a whole
heck of a lot of good, neither. It's like a doctor pointing towards one of the
"terminaal" patients in a hosptial's ICU, and stoutly declaring: "My dream is
that -- *one* day -- ALL of our patients will be just like *this* one." <g>
Opinions on ANYthing, David -- whether on the subjects of people;
puddings; politics; or (here comes the heresy <g>) COMICS -- are like toes:
nearly EVERYone has at least ten of 'em; and (often as not) your own will
"smell" better to you than they will to the next guy over. And vice-versa.
The impulse to "slam" O'Neill -- given what I've seen, thus far, of his
antics in this forum -- is one I can readily appreciate.
However: I don't think there's any great, tearing need to demonize any-
and everyone *else* who might just happen to differ with you, re: this whole
"continuity" shibboleth. And it certainly isn't as if *I've* been peeing in
YOUR rosebushes, any time recently. <g>
Okay. So: everyone can go back to their regularly scheduled "flaming,"
and whatnot. ;-))
Cheeks, the Toy Wonder
Owner/Operator, THE CHEEKS THE TOY WONDER HOME PAGE
"Your One-Stop Shopping Experience for Comics Sanity"
http://toywonder.simplenet.com/
David W. Stepp
cheek...@aol.com (CheeksMite) wrote:
>
> My undying thanks for spray-painting anyone who might think that
> "continuity" is a more overrated commodity than (say) Plot; Dialogue;
> Characterization; or Theme as an ignorant know-nothing. That was really swell
> of you. ;-p
understand the medium of comics as they exist. However, since you asked,
you have some fairly serious intrepretational problems of your own. The
first is that I didn't say they were an ignorant know nothing but if you
don't udnerstand what the role of continuity in comics is today to a level
that you can think you can just ignore it, then I think it's pretty fair
criticism to say you don't know what you're talking about.
> ... and (again: IMHO) using today's "sales" -- poor, pitiful, anemic
> things that they are -- to justify virtually *any* aspect of how the companies
> are doing things Right Here, Right Now doesn't do your counter-argument
a whole
> heck of a lot of good, neither. It's like a doctor pointing towards one
of the
> "terminaal" patients in a hosptial's ICU, and stoutly declaring: "My dream is
> that -- *one* day -- ALL of our patients will be just like *this* one." <g>
You don't understand much about comparisons either. There is continuous
and non-discountinous stuff from both companies. All of it is going down.
It was going down 20 years ago. Continuity therefore is not what makes the
difference. Saying low sales are a result of continuity or might be
changed by continuity or lack therof is a stupid statement. It comes from
not knowing the data. As long as you have been here, you personally should
know better.
> Opinions on ANYthing, David -- whether on the subjects of people;
> puddings; politics; or (here comes the heresy <g>) COMICS -- are like toes:
> nearly EVERYone has at least ten of 'em; and (often as not) your own will
> "smell" better to you than they will to the next guy over. And vice-versa.
> The impulse to "slam" O'Neill -- given what I've seen, thus far, of his
> antics in this forum -- is one I can readily appreciate.
> However: I don't think there's any great, tearing need to demonize any-
> and everyone *else* who might just happen to differ with you, re: this whole
> "continuity" shibboleth. And it certainly isn't as if *I've* been peeing in
> YOUR rosebushes, any time recently. <g>
You are attemptinng something which might seem noble were it not so
misguided. I do not demonize anyone who doesn't like continuity anymore
than I would criticize people who like Wolverine (although why is beyond
me). I do criticize people who claim that what *I* like is ruining their
enjoyment of comics when there are ample alternatives. I don't see anyone
crying out for DC to cancel Superman Adventures or stop making Elseworlds.
The Nail was very well-received here. DC makes what will sell in a
reliable, predictable fashion. Books based on continuing characters does.
Other stuff not so much. Most of here who advocate continuity also
advocate DC's expanding it's base even at our expense. But blaming
continuity or people who enjoy it as part of the entertainment experience
is stupid by anyone's defintion of the word. If you find that shoe
comfprtable, I would think the next step is obvious.
D.
grat...@hotmail.com
3615c013...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
fe...@lsh.org (Dan McEwen) wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Oct 1998 13:50:27 GMT, JWo...@mail.fc.peachnet.edu wrote:
>
> >Ok, ok people are talking like you know for a fact that the pre-crisis
> >multiverse is coming back. I wanna know where you're getting this information,
> >because it sure as fuck isn't in Wizard magazine.
>
> Hmm...OK, let's look at this. In LEGION OF SUPER-HEROES, Superman is
> known only as a legend. No mention whatsoever of a Superman Dynasty.
> When Superboy first met the Legion, they all thought he was Superman
> as a boy until he told them otherwise. Yes, in DC1M, Superboy has had
> clones consistently from the 20th century through the 853rd. And then
> there's the more blatant reference to Gog killing Superman in the 21st
> appear to spell "multiverse".
>
>
describe only alternate timelines (thus undoing the stated
effects of Zero Hour and End of an Era in the Legion
books), not necessarily a multiverse of parallel timelines
( as in the old Earths 1,2, 3, etc. merged into one Earth
in Crisis). Alternate timelines, notably in Marvel's X-
Men, Avengers and FF books, are an inherently messier
concept, especially when the various versions continue
interacting with stories based in the single present, but
in some ways they're easier to dismiss than parallel
earths because they're still only potential realities and
writers/editors/readers don't need to be overly
concerned with what "really" happens/exists in them.
Seems to me that the major reason for undoing Zero
Hour and establishing official DC alternate timelines is
to milk the commercial success of Kingdom Come, and
while that's all well and good, I'd rather see it allow for
the return of concepts like the original Atomic Knights,
Kamadi, and O.M.A.C.
And while bring back a true multiverse of parallel
earths would take some seriously messy (un/re)doing,
I'd sure love to see the likes of Helena (Huntress) Wayne
again......
--
"...And in the end, all they ask you are those crappy
little questions."-Robert Penn Warren, ATKM
CheeksMite
David:
>> My undying thanks for spray-painting anyone who might think that
>> "continuity" is a more overrated commodity than (say) Plot; Dialogue;
>> Characterization; or Theme as an ignorant know-nothing. That was really
>swell
>> of you. ;-p
>
> In general, my response was that the individual in question doesn't
>understand the medium of comics as they exist.
"In general," what you actually *said* (and to which I responded, in turn)
was:
1st Poster: "All I care about are good comics. I could give a tiny shit about
continuity."
You: " Then you don't understand the medium."
The obvious implication, here, is that ANYone whose o-p-i-n-i-o-n-s on
this subject differ from your own o-p-i-n-i-o-n-s does not "understand the
medium," David. Therefore: yeah... you *did*, in fact, spray-paint players
for the opposing team as being "ignorant." ("... don't understand the
medium.")
Mind, now: you're certainly well *entitled* to tear a page out of Omar's
playbook, if them's yer druthers. (Although I don't think it's much *like* you,
really.) Just thought it warranted pointing out that that's what you were
(and still are) *doing*, is all. No matter which flavor of locutional
whip-topping you'd like to coat it with now.
>However, since you asked,
>you have some fairly serious intrepretational problems of your own.
More Omar-isms. How very ... charming.
>The
>first is that I didn't say they were an ignorant know nothing
A thousand thousand pardons, *memsahib.* You merely staated that anyone
who doesn't see things *your* way on this issue "doesn't understand anything
about the medium." (You probably meant "genre," BTW... unless it is *also*
your contention that comics such as WENDY THE GOOD LITTLE WITCH and ZAP! must,
per force, *also* adhere to your "rules," and yours alone. "Super-hero comics"
are a genre; ALL of comics is a storytelling "medium.")
How... charitable of you.
>but if you
>don't udnerstand what the role of continuity in comics is today to a level
>that you can think you can just ignore it, then I think it's pretty fair
>criticism to say you don't know what you're talking about.
I'm quite certain you *do* think that, David. <g>
For the record: if you could please, please, *pretty* please quote for me
the posting or missive wherein I ever stated that "continuity" should be
"ignored"... I'll buy you a new car, bright and early tomorrow morning.
Speaking of, ummmm, "interpretational problems," here, and all. <g>
What I *explicitly* stated was: " 'continuity' is a more overrated
commodity than (say) Plot; Dialogue; Characterization; or Theme."
That's it. That's *all*. End of sentence.
Unless it is your contention that "continuity" IS more important to the
tale well-told than any of these, David... I can't even *pretend* to guess at
what *you're* getting all nasty and hostile over.
>>>>the fact that they don't
>outnumber "in continuity" stuff argues that that at least in the current
>market, people who care about continuity outnumber those who don't.
>> ... and (again: IMHO) using today's "sales" -- poor, pitiful,
anemic
>> things that they are -- to justify virtually *any* aspect of how the
>companies
>> are doing things Right Here, Right Now doesn't do your counter-argument
>a whole
>> heck of a lot of good, neither. It's like a doctor pointing towards one
>of the
>> "terminal" patients in a hosptial's ICU, and stoutly declaring: "My dream
>is
>> that -- *one* day -- ALL of our patients will be just like *this* one."
><g>
>
> You don't understand much about comparisons either.
Hold that thought, David. We'll be coming back to it. <g>
>There is continuous
>and non-discountinous stuff from both companies. All of it is going down.
By "it," in that last sentence, I take it you are referring to sales,
industry-wide...? (The reference is not a clear one...so: I'm just askin', is
all. There's already enough free-floating hostility, hereabouts, As Is. Just
quantifying terms, here. <g>)
>It was going down 20 years ago. Continuity therefore is not what makes the
>difference. Saying low sales are a result of continuity or might be
>changed by continuity or lack therof is a stupid statement. It comes from
>not knowing the data. As long as you have been here, you personally should
>know better.
Oh, my. <g>
A.) It certainly wasn't *I* who first attempted to drag "sales" into this
conversation, as an attempt to shore up the "need" for "continuity," David.
That was *you*, with your comment: "the fact that they don't outnumber "in
continuity" stuff argues that that at least in the current market, people who
care about continuity outnumber those who don't."
To coin a phrase, then: "Saying... sales are a result of continuity or
might be changed by continuity... is a stupid statement." <g> You were saying
something about "shoes" and "fitting," David...? <g>
B.) While you're out looking for that posting where I (supposedly) stated
that " 'continuity' should be *ignored*"... why not also see if you can find
the one where I stated that the (IMHO) foolish MEGA-adherence to same is the
O-N-L-Y reason for the current sales slump, industry-wide? I imagine they must
be a-sittin' side-by-side. Somewhere. Maybe. I suppose. <g>
If *I* "don't understand much about comparisons," David... at least I
"understand" *this* much about 'em: it's generally considered bad rhetorical
form to make up the *other* fellah's FOR him, in support of one's own.
C.) Notice how -- even though I disagree with *you* on much of what
you've just now posted, David -- I seem to be able to refrain from such
insulting and pejorative cant as "stupid."
D.) Finally: given that I *have* (as you've put it) "been here" -- off
and on -- for some little time now... I'd like to think that the simple act of
*disagreeing* with you wouldn't merit such insulting and cavalier treatment as
I've received thus far. YMMV, however, of course.
>> Opinions on ANYthing, David -- whether on the subjects of people;
>> puddings; politics; or (here comes the heresy <g>) COMICS -- are like toes:
>
>> nearly EVERYone has at least ten of 'em; and (often as not) your own will
>> "smell" better to you than they will to the next guy over. And vice-versa.
>> The impulse to "slam" O'Neill -- given what I've seen, thus far, of
>his
>> antics in this forum -- is one I can readily appreciate.
>> However: I don't think there's any great, tearing need to demonize
>any-
>> and everyone *else* who might just happen to differ with you, re: this
>whole
>> "continuity" shibboleth. And it certainly isn't as if *I've* been peeing
>in
>> YOUR rosebushes, any time recently. <g>
>
> You are attemptinng something which might seem noble were it not so
>misguided.
First "doesn't understand the medium"; then "serious interpretational
problems"; "don't know what you're talking about"; "stupid"... and now:
"misguided," to top everything off.
HOW long did you say you've been working for Hallmark again, David...?
<g>
> I do not demonize anyone who doesn't like continuity
[Insert Frenzied, Strangled Coughing Here <g>]
> I do criticize people who claim that what *I* like is ruining their
>enjoyment of comics when there are ample alternatives.
Lovely. And I did this *when*, again...? <g>
>Most of here who advocate continuity also
>advocate DC's expanding it's base even at our expense. But blaming
>continuity or people who enjoy it as part of the entertainment experience
>is stupid by anyone's defintion of the word. If you find that shoe
>comfprtable, I would think the next step is obvious.
Yeah. Inform the salesman (you, in this instance) that you've not only
screwed up such a simple thing as my *size*... but my preferred color; style;
and price range, as well. <g>
I understand that you're all torqued off over O'Neill's natterings,
David...
... however: I'd consider it the most minimal of online courtesies if --
in the future -- you might give some small consideration to keeping *my*
comments and *his* s-e-p-a-r-a-t-e in your mind (and responses), from now on.
Given that we've just now (exhaustively) demonstrated that what you're spewing
at *me* for ain't even within a fair country mile of what I actually *said*, I
mean. <g>
Thennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnkew. ;-)))
G.Haire
Dan McEwen wrote in message <3617db52...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
of
>>many POSSIBLE futures, not THE future.
>
>
>
Good Point. Anything can happen between now & the 853rd century.
Dan McEwen
>In article <
>3615c013...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> fe...@lsh.org (Dan McEwen) wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Oct 1998 13:50:27 GMT, JWo...@mail.fc.peachnet.edu wrote:
>>
>> >Ok, ok people are talking like you know for a fact that the pre-crisis
>> >multiverse is coming back. I wanna know where you're getting this information,
>> >because it sure as fuck isn't in Wizard magazine.
>>
>> Hmm...OK, let's look at this. In LEGION OF SUPER-HEROES, Superman is
>> known only as a legend. No mention whatsoever of a Superman Dynasty.
>> When Superboy first met the Legion, they all thought he was Superman
>> as a boy until he told them otherwise. Yes, in DC1M, Superboy has had
>> clones consistently from the 20th century through the 853rd. And then
>> there's the more blatant reference to Gog killing Superman in the 21st
>> century made by Waverider. When you put these all together, they
>> appear to spell "multiverse".
>>
>>
>Not really. Technically, these divergencies would
>describe only alternate timelines (thus undoing the stated
>effects of Zero Hour and End of an Era in the Legion
>books), not necessarily a multiverse of parallel timelines
>( as in the old Earths 1,2, 3, etc. merged into one Earth
>in Crisis).
The difference here is that you're making it sound like alternate
timelines are somehow different from a multiverse. "Multiverse"
simply means that there are multiple universes. Whether that comes in
the form of alternate timelines or parallel timelines, it's still
*more*than*one* timeline.
jonn...@my-dejanews.com
boyd...@hotmail.com (Alan David Doane) wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Oct 1998 13:50:27 GMT, JWo...@mail.fc.peachnet.edu wrote:
>
> >>>Ok, ok people are talking like you know for a fact that the pre-crisis
> >>>multiverse is coming back. I wanna know where you're getting this
information,
> >>>because it sure as fuck isn't in Wizard magazine.
> >>>
>
How so??
Edward Mathews
: >appear to spell "multiverse".
: Or, perhaps they spell "we'll use what we need to tell a good story right now;
: hang the anal retentives who insist that every little piece fit together
: neatly. We're telling stories, not doing jigsaw puzzles."
I see you've come back to spread the love. We've missed you, Pat.
Ed (The words and opinions expressed are those of Edward Mathews and do
not represent the opinions or policies of WIZARD: THE GUIDE TO COMICS,
which makes sense since he doesn't work for them and only buys the damn
thing when Alex Ross does a cover or a poster) Mathews
*****
**-----
* ---
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://pages.nyu.edu/~em11
Voting has begun on rec.arts.sf.superman -- Vote now!
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: PatDOneill (patdo...@aol.comnospam) wrote:
: :
: : hang the anal retentives who insist that every little piece fit together
: : neatly. We're telling stories, not doing jigsaw puzzles."
: Pat, do you feel it absolutely necesarry ot insult everyone who disagrees
: with you in every post you make?
: On the topic of the multiverse, people are only trying to piece together the
: hints of what is to come that have been thrown their way. We've had hints
: in stories, we've had writers dropping hints, we've had writers POITING OUT
: HINTS IN THE FREAKING COMICS.
More than that, we've had Waid and Morrison pretty much *talking* about it
at cons, haven't we?
- Elayne
--
"Very few people possess true artistic ability. It is therefore both
unseemly and unproductive to irritate the situation by making an effort.
If you have a burning, restless urge to write or paint, simply eat
something sweet and the feeling will pass." - Fran Lebowitz
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: Ok, ok people are talking like you know for a fact that the pre-crisis
: multiverse is coming back. I wanna know where you're getting this information,
: because it sure as fuck isn't in Wizard magazine.
Your naivete is charming.
Wizard isn't the be-all and end-all of comics information. Also, remember
that lead time for print information is almost always longer than lead
time for online information.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: In article <juricich-041...@209-239-197-18.oak.jps.net>,
: juri...@jps.net (Chris Juricich) wrote:
:
: Then you don't understand the medium. This statement is analagous to:
: I just want to drive my car. I could give a shit about oil, gas or tires.
I should think it would be more analagous to "I could give a shit about
the history of internal combustion."
Fiddler
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
> JWo...@mail.fc.peachnet.edu wrote:
> : Ok, ok people are talking like you know for a fact that the pre-crisis
> : multiverse is coming back. I wanna know where you're getting this
information,
> : because it sure as fuck isn't in Wizard magazine.
>
> Your naivete is charming.
>
> Wizard isn't the be-all and end-all of comics information.
It... it's not? You mean the guy at the comic shop lied to me?
Does this mean my 25 polybagged copies of The Death of Superman aren't
going to appreciate in value either?
-- Fiddler
No, not *that* Fiddler. Everyone liked him. I'm someone else.
Angela Silva
HOWever, if the average muddlehead non-comics reader tries to jump into
this, DC can kiss whatever dreams for spinracks in Borders they ever had.
If I, as a long-time, intelligent college-ass educated guy needs a program
to figure out who goes where and when, even if I should find myself able
to care long enough to do so, what hope does the average non-reader have?
DC is still my favorite publisher and I love their characters, but let's
all face it-- unless a gawdammed MIRACLE occurs (and it could, it
could...) DC will end up just like every other comics publisher out there
someday...residing with ACG, Fox, EC, Western, and Dell.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: Look, all I care about is whether or not the stories and art are good.
Preach it, brother!
This is the opinion I've been trying to express in some of the continuity
threads for awhile-- that, while it's obvious that many people *here* care
about such things, I have to assume the majority of the reading public out
there just cares about whether or not they're getting a good story.
- Elayne
--
Girls, girls. You're both pretty! Now take it to email, please.
- Chris Pierson <cpie...@tiac.net>
commenting on a Usenet flamewar
("I stole it from Homicide anyway")
Carl Fink
>Angela Silva (jak...@sirius.com) wrote:
>: Look, all I care about is whether or not the stories and art are good.
>
>Preach it, brother!
>
>This is the opinion I've been trying to express in some of the continuity
>threads for awhile-- that, while it's obvious that many people *here* care
>about such things, I have to assume the majority of the reading public out
>there just cares about whether or not they're getting a good story.
Pardon the long quote.
Elayne, by (my) definition, a "good story" *can't badly violate
continuity*. Why is that so hard to understand?
Yes, yes, you assume one thing about the "majority", but I assume the
opposite. Do you have any actual data backing up your opinion?
--
Carl Fink ca...@dm.net
"Your brain is actually a fabulously complex computer, which means that
on Jan. 1, 2000, it will stop working and your body will flop around
like a recently caught perch." (Dave Barry, slightly paraphrased.)
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: On 13 Oct 1998 09:49:23 -0400, Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: >Angela Silva (jak...@sirius.com) wrote:
: >: Look, all I care about is whether or not the stories and art are good.
: >
: >Preach it, brother!
: >
: >This is the opinion I've been trying to express in some of the continuity
: >threads for awhile-- that, while it's obvious that many people *here* care
: >about such things, I have to assume the majority of the reading public out
: >there just cares about whether or not they're getting a good story.
: Pardon the long quote.
: Elayne, by (my) definition, a "good story" *can't badly violate
: continuity*. Why is that so hard to understand?
It's not hard to understand at all, Carl. I was merely pointing out that
many people don't consider continuity violations at ALL when reading a
story. They just take it as a piece. That's what I meant by my last
sentence. Sorry if it was unclear.
JC007
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput wrote in message <6vvlp3$9...@panix3.panix.com>...
>I have to assume the majority of the reading public out
>there just cares about whether or not they're getting a good story.
A non-comics reading friend of mine recently expressed disbelief at the
whole concept of continuity and a shared universe. He asked why any story
should take more than two issues to tell and also wondered why any stories
should refer back to earlier ones.
(Mind you, I suspect he was just winding me up.)
From a personal point of view, I started reading comics again about a year
ago. I didn't really understand what was going on at first, but with the
help of a few web sites and the expenditure of huge amounts of money I
managed to catch up with the DCU. I'm glad I did.
Sometimes, though, I pick up a book I don't normally read and I get so
confused I put it down and never buy another issue. Continuity is great for
regulars with enough cash to pick up a lot of titles per month. To a general
reader it's a nightmare.
So what do companies want? A dedicated, but limited, fan base or a large
general readership? The former offers stability, but the latter offers the
promise of far bigger profits.
JC007
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: Elayne Wechsler-Chaput wrote in message <6vvlp3$9...@panix3.panix.com>...
: >I have to assume the majority of the reading public out
: >there just cares about whether or not they're getting a good story.
: A non-comics reading friend of mine recently expressed disbelief at the
: whole concept of continuity and a shared universe.
Well, given that other media (TV and movies) also employ this concept
successfully I'm a bit surprised at his disbelief, but I can certainly
understand disinterest, because I get a lot of that from my non-comics
reading friends.
: From a personal point of view, I started reading comics again about a year
: ago. I didn't really understand what was going on at first, but with the
: help of a few web sites and the expenditure of huge amounts of money I
: managed to catch up with the DCU. I'm glad I did.
Oh, the richness of the DCU is certainly rewarding to folks who have the
time and money to commit to its discovery. These days, though, I suspect
most people just want a bit of light reading, they don't crave the kind of
involvement that regular readers and die-hard fans seem to.
: Sometimes, though, I pick up a book I don't normally read and I get so
: confused I put it down and never buy another issue. Continuity is great for
: regulars with enough cash to pick up a lot of titles per month. To a general
: reader it's a nightmare.
Just so.
: So what do companies want? A dedicated, but limited, fan base or a large
: general readership? The former offers stability, but the latter offers the
: promise of far bigger profits.
I'm not sure the former offers a tremendous amount of stability. Just
this week alone we've had "testimonials" from a number of formerly loyal
DC readers who are now abandoning DC comics due to disappointment over
stories and characters. Look how many readers the X books have lost over
the last few years. The industry is no longer in a position to take
"dedication" for granted. Fresh blood is desperately needed, and I
believe that if the companies concentrate on telling good, accessible
stories they'll retain their current readership and draw in new folks.
John Kenneth Fisher
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
> It's not hard to understand at all, Carl. I was merely pointing out that
> many people don't consider continuity violations at ALL when reading a
> story. They just take it as a piece. That's what I meant by my last
> sentence. Sorry if it was unclear.
When I read a comic, I don't care about minor flubs. Timelines for
instance don't bother me at all. Of course it makes no sense to have
characters have been in WWII and be the same age now, but this doesn't
bother me in the slightest. A character saying something offhand that can
be refuted by an issue published in 1972? Personally, who cares? (Well, a
lot of people, but not me.) (hi, Omar!) What does bother me are blatantly
ignoring major events. Acting like a villian is new when I KNOW I saw him
about a year ago. Just arbitrarily deciding to change origins. (Though an
occasional update is fine. Totally changing it, however, is another
thing.) Man I had examples when I started writing this, and now I've
forgotten them.
Oh screw you guys, I'm going home.
--
John K. Fisher!
Registered Democrat and Barry Manilow fan.
Anyone know how Ft. Lewis, Washington is this time of year?
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: In article <6vvuc1$l...@panix3.panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
: Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
: > It's not hard to understand at all, Carl. I was merely pointing out that
: > many people don't consider continuity violations at ALL when reading a
: > story. They just take it as a piece. That's what I meant by my last
: > sentence. Sorry if it was unclear.
: When I read a comic, I don't care about minor flubs...
: What does bother me are blatantly
: ignoring major events. Acting like a villian is new when I KNOW I saw him
: about a year ago. Just arbitrarily deciding to change origins.
Understood, but what seems like an obvious "bare minimum" to you or me
sometimes doesn't even register as a blip on casual readers' radar. That's
all I'm trying to impart-- that what we as regular readers may consider
"major events" aren't going to faze occasional readers, they're not
interested in following the DCU to that extent. They just want to read a
fun and entertaining story. Whether Cruella deVille appeared in THOSE
DARN DOGS #16 as a black woman and in GET THEM DALMATIANS! #8 as Asian
doesn't even matter at this interest level; all they want to know is who
she is and what her function is in the one book they're reading.
John Kenneth Fisher
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
> John Kenneth Fisher (JohnKFis...@FortMonmouth.Army.net) wrote:
> : In article <6vvuc1$l...@panix3.panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
> : Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>
> : > It's not hard to understand at all, Carl. I was merely pointing out that
> : > many people don't consider continuity violations at ALL when reading a
> : > story. They just take it as a piece. That's what I meant by my last
> : > sentence. Sorry if it was unclear.
>
> : When I read a comic, I don't care about minor flubs...
> : What does bother me are blatantly
> : ignoring major events. Acting like a villian is new when I KNOW I saw him
> : about a year ago. Just arbitrarily deciding to change origins.
>
> Understood, but what seems like an obvious "bare minimum" to you or me
> sometimes doesn't even register as a blip on casual readers' radar. That's
> all I'm trying to impart-- that what we as regular readers may consider
> "major events" aren't going to faze occasional readers, they're not
> interested in following the DCU to that extent. They just want to read a
> fun and entertaining story.
Absolutely agreed. I am a big fan of continuity, and prefer to see it kept
to, but I do realize that is just me. I am quite willing to forgive what I
see as minor, and realize that some people don't care at all.
Maybe that's why I love the Kevin Smith films. Intercontinuity is great,
as well as real-world continuity, for the most part, (Eden Prairie
indeed.) though only people who live where I live would know that. I just
enjoy seeing it as all part of the same 'world'
--
John K. Fisher, who will follow Kevin Smith anywhere.
Though if he messes up my Green Arrow, there will be hell to pay.
Chris
BillM414 wrote:
> Well, if you don't mind a Marvel reference, the current reboot of Spider-Man is
> a good example of reworking an origin... it seems like a sensible middle ground
> between having to live with things that made sense 35 years ago but don't any
> more, and completely starting over from scratch.
Is this a compleate re-boot (ala post crisis Superman, nothing that happened before
is in-continuty) or just a retelling of the origin with modern referances? (The
whole clone saga still happened. . . )
--
~Chris, who's sorry about off topic posting, but doesn't read enough Marvel
to sift through the Marvel NG. . .
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right
to tell people what they do not want to hear."
-George Orwell
To reply toss out my %CanO'SpamAway%
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: >The industry is no longer in a position to take
: >"dedication" for granted. Fresh blood is desperately needed, and I
: >believe that if the companies concentrate on telling good, accessible
: >stories they'll retain their current readership and draw in new folks.
: I'd agree with that, but I don't see why continuity is inconsistant with good
: stories. (or am I reading too much into the foregoing?)
It's not *necessarily* inconsistent with good storytelling, but it's not
necessarily *needed* in order to tell a good story, and it often gets in
the way and bogs down a good story, if the writer gets too caught up in
details that he/she misses the forest for the trees.
: The big change I think they need to make is not requiring familiarity with
: everything that has gone before in order to understand the story. Continuity
: should be subtext, not the main story, and too often lately the story in a
: given issue is merely there as a device and the continuity is the real
: 'highlight' of the issue.
Hear hear. It's all a matter of perspective. Well said.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: On 13 Oct 1998 15:19:54 -0400, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
: Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
: >Understood, but what seems like an obvious "bare minimum" to you or me
: >sometimes doesn't even register as a blip on casual readers' radar. That's
: >all I'm trying to impart-- that what we as regular readers may consider
: >"major events" aren't going to faze occasional readers, they're not
: >interested in following the DCU to that extent. They just want to read a
: >DARN DOGS #16 as a black woman and in GET THEM DALMATIANS! #8 as Asian
: >doesn't even matter at this interest level; all they want to know is who
: >she is and what her function is in the one book they're reading.
: It's not this cut-and-dried, though. Say, if Superman suddenly became
: a black or Asian man without explanation -- you don't think that would
: throw even the casual reader out of the story?
Ah, there's the rub-- "without explanation." Superman is extremely well-
known so that, yes, one line would probably be needed. A footnote saying
"This is a story about a world where Superman is Asian" would probably
suffice for most casual readers. But that's a pretty extreme example;
most of what's being discussed here is in the nature of details only kept
track of by people who enjoy, well, stats. Most casual readers are not by
nature statisticians.
- Elayne (isn't even interested in baseball stats)
Paul O'Brien
<fire...@panix.com> writes
>
>Understood, but what seems like an obvious "bare minimum" to you or me
>sometimes doesn't even register as a blip on casual readers' radar.
That's fine, but superhero books are a serial medium at the moment.
If you're going to run storylines - and virtually every title does -
then you've got to maintain some semblance of continuity. How are
the readers supposed to get any involvement in the storyline if
they know the goalposts are liable to be moved at any moment? This
isn't a problem with things that are obviously just trivial errors,
but when you get titles contradicting themselves on reasonably
significant points, it's a big obstacle to enjoying the story.
Paul O'Brien
pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk, www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~prob/
Buy Belle and Sebastian records.
Glenn Simpson
Scott Hollifield wrote in message <3624f531...@news.mindspring.com>...
>On 14 Oct 1998 11:18:53 GMT, patdo...@aol.comnospam (PatDOneill)
>wrote:
>
>>>From: scot...@mindspring.com (Scott Hollifield)
>>
>>>It's not this cut-and-dried, though. Say, if Superman suddenly became
>>>a black or Asian man without explanation -- you don't think that would
>>>throw even the casual reader out of the story?
>>
be
>>"thrown out of the story" if Charlie Brown suddenly became a girl.
>
>How about if Green Lantern suddenly became Asian? How about if Carol
>Ferris suddenly became Asian? What if Carol Ferris suddenly became an
>investment banker? You see? It's not cut-and-dried. It's a matter
>of degrees.
>
>Where we'd disagree, then, is on the minimum required prominence of a
>detail such that it shouldn't be changed arbitrarily without a
>reasonable explanation.
>
I think you've hit it on the head, and this is something there will never be
agreement on.
BillM414
>"dedication" for granted. Fresh blood is desperately needed, and I
>believe that if the companies concentrate on telling good, accessible
>stories they'll retain their current readership and draw in new folks.
>
I'd agree with that, but I don't see why continuity is inconsistant with good
stories. (or am I reading too much into the foregoing?)
The big change I think they need to make is not requiring familiarity with
BillM414
>ignoring major events. Acting like a villian is new when I KNOW I saw him
>occasional update is fine. Totally changing it, however, is another
>thing.)
Well, if you don't mind a Marvel reference, the current reboot of Spider-Man is
a good example of reworking an origin... it seems like a sensible middle ground
between having to live with things that made sense 35 years ago but don't any
more, and completely starting over from scratch.
When it comes down to it, the publishers are here to make money, and they need
to keep the characters accessable. Over time, a lot of things change... not
the least of which is the audience. Think of the reworking of the DC
characters when the golden-age heroes were brought back for a new generation in
the late 50's/early 60's... rather than stick with what was done before, they
took the concept and created whole new origins, new costumes, and new
directions for the heroes. Why? Because the prople producing them were on an
ego trip? No, it was to create versions of the characters that would sell.
Well, it's been 40 years since the silver-age heroes were created, and they've
lasted a LOT longer than their golden-age counterparts. Over time, they have
evolved, and changes have been made, some handled well, some not.
I know Marz-bashers will hate this, but if Green Lantern had been selling well
it wouldn't have been revamped, cancelled, and restarted so often. And
ultimately, if Hal Jordan-GL had been selling well, he'd still be the Green
Lantern.
Legion has been through much the same thing.. think of all the different
series, the revamps, and the reboot. Why? I'm sure if sales had been good the
'original' Legion would still be on the racks.
So, when the time comes that sales drop, you can go so far with new creative
teams, but ultimately if the characters don't work any more, you either have to
revamp things, reboot, or just cancel it and move on.
Scott Hollifield
>sometimes doesn't even register as a blip on casual readers' radar. That's
>"major events" aren't going to faze occasional readers, they're not
>interested in following the DCU to that extent. They just want to read a
>fun and entertaining story. Whether Cruella deVille appeared in THOSE
>DARN DOGS #16 as a black woman and in GET THEM DALMATIANS! #8 as Asian
>doesn't even matter at this interest level; all they want to know is who
>she is and what her function is in the one book they're reading.
It's not this cut-and-dried, though. Say, if Superman suddenly became
BillM414
>before
>is in-continuty) or just a retelling of the origin with modern referances?
>(The
>whole clone saga still happened. . . )
Kind of both..
The basic outlines follow the original story, but most of the events are
different... the story makes a lot more sense now, for one thing.
It looks like, though the broad outlines will be the same, much of the history
will be different. Byrne did say, though, that given the establised history,
he knows what will be happenning for the next hundred issues or so :)
PatDOneill
>I'd agree with that, but I don't see why continuity is inconsistant with good
>stories. (or am I reading too much into the foregoing?)
It's not. An overreliance on it as the basis for stories is, however,
inconsistent with developing a new reader base.
>too often lately the story in a
>given issue is merely there as a device and the continuity is the real
>'highlight' of the issue
Gee, hope you get a more positive response to this observation than I usually
do.
Best, Pat
The words and opinions expressed are those of Patrick Daniel O'Neill and do not
represent the opinions or policies of WIZARD: THE GUIDE TO COMICS.
PatDOneill
>It's not this cut-and-dried, though. Say, if Superman suddenly became
>a black or Asian man without explanation -- you don't think that would
>throw even the casual reader out of the story?
Of course, because Superman is a cultural icon. Similarly, readers would be
"thrown out of the story" if Charlie Brown suddenly became a girl.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: In article <70094q$7...@panix3.panix.com>, Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: <fire...@panix.com> writes
: >
: >Understood, but what seems like an obvious "bare minimum" to you or me
: >sometimes doesn't even register as a blip on casual readers' radar.
: That's fine, but superhero books are a serial medium at the moment.
So? The art is part of the serial as well, and nobody here seems to get
hung up on art details the way they get hung up on story details.
: If you're going to run storylines - and virtually every title does -
: then you've got to maintain some semblance of continuity.
And what that "semblance" is differs depending on whether you're a regular
reader or a casual one. Most casual readers aren't going to care about
the stats.
- Elayne
Bruce L. Grubb
(BillM414) wrote:
>>What does bother me are blatantly
>>ignoring major events. Acting like a villian is new when I KNOW I saw him
>>about a year ago. Just arbitrarily deciding to change origins. (Though an
>>occasional update is fine. Totally changing it, however, is another
>>thing.)
>
>Well, if you don't mind a Marvel reference, the current reboot of Spider-Man is
>a good example of reworking an origin... it seems like a sensible middle ground
>between having to live with things that made sense 35 years ago but don't any
>more, and completely starting over from scratch.
>
>When it comes down to it, the publishers are here to make money, and they need
>to keep the characters accessable. Over time, a lot of things change... not
>the least of which is the audience. Think of the reworking of the DC
>characters when the golden-age heroes were brought back for a new generation in
>the late 50's/early 60's... rather than stick with what was done before, they
>took the concept and created whole new origins, new costumes, and new
>directions for the heroes.
Accually this happened for characters like Flash and Green Lantern while
others like Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman were basicly carbon copies
of their Earth-2 counterparts.
The Earth-1 Superman didn't really see much development in the 1960's
though as Superboy the character did change and grow. Other than going
campy in the 1960's Batman's character development was about nil until the
mid 1970's.
>Why? Because the prople producing them were on an
>ego trip? No, it was to create versions of the characters that would sell.
Totally different situation as many changes in golden-age heroes was due
to the public buying into the _Seduction of the Innocent_ drivel. Today's
comic change things simply to change things and in some cases the changes
hurt the sales of the books (Spider Clone mess case in point)
>Well, it's been 40 years since the silver-age heroes were created, and they've
>lasted a LOT longer than their golden-age counterparts. Over time, they have
>evolved, and changes have been made, some handled well, some not.
Several problems with that statement.
First DC eliminated their Silver age characters with Crisis (1985) and
post-Crisis revamps for nearly everbody. So DC's Silver-age characters
only lasted at most 30 years (1955-1985). Never mind that beginning in
1961 DC started revived their Golden age characters with Flash V1 #123
"Flash of Two Worlds" which by 1963 developed into a regular event.
Second, it ignores the major effect that _Seduction of the Innocent_ had
on the comic book industry in the 1950's. Since there was no
Silver/Bronze age equivalent of this book or the histaria it produced
there wasn't the presure to do mammoth changes to characters.
Finally, the 1955-1985 period accually is -two- comic book ages: the
Silver age and the Bronze (also known as the Late 'Silver') Age. Many of
the changes to
Silver Age characters happened during the Bronze age which started c1972.
>I know Marz-bashers will hate this, but if Green Lantern had been selling well
>it wouldn't have been revamped, cancelled, and restarted so often. And
>ultimately, if Hal Jordan-GL had been selling well, he'd still be the Green
>Lantern.
The problem with this statement is that it ignores the quality of the
stories. As proven by the way the Spiderman book sales plunged during the
Clone Saga having an interesting character is not enough - one also has to
have interesting storylines for that character. The tendacy though is to
say people are not interested in the character rather than admit that the
stories majory suck.
Since Spiderman was a "flagship character" Marvel had to bite the bullet
and admit the storyline was why the book had gone south and put the
storyline rather than the Peter Parker character out of its and the
readers' misery.
If Hal had been in the same ranking as Superman and Batman then DC would
have similarly realized that the storylines were what sucked rather than
the character.
>Legion has been through much the same thing.. think of all the different
>series, the revamps, and the reboot. Why? I'm sure if sales had been good the
>'original' Legion would still be on the racks.
As pointed out in other thread most of the problems with the LSH came from
the fact comic acted like Crisis never happened. Efforts to reconsile
this history with the new Post-Crisis history simply made things worse.
By the time of ZH the LSH continuity was more convoluted than Hawkman's
and there wasn't anything left to do but reboot the convoluted mess.
>So, when the time comes that sales drop, you can go so far with new creative
>teams, but ultimately if the characters don't work any more, you either have to
>revamp things, reboot, or just cancel it and move on.
As pointed out in the Hal Jordan web page
<http://www.abacom.com/~ldeg/gl.htm> the decline of Hal Jordon as a
marketable character was mainly due to sloppy handling and a total
disregard to previous character development in Action Weekly (more like
Action Weakly) comics.
The Lord Malvoilo story was a good example of the totally cluelessness of
the writers of the post Crisis period. A rogue GL whose powers effect
something yellow and works when his ring is taken away? Say what?!?
Emerald Twilight was drivel from start to finsh. Not only is Hal totally
out of character but the Guardians of the Universe are totally stupid. As
established in the Alan Scott retcon the Guardians can change the weakness
of any one GL ring. So why not do this to Hal's rather than let him bash
GL heads? Never mind that the whole Milliniam plot of the Guardians and
Zamarians going off to have offspring was totally forgotten.
The rumored alternative ET storyline would have been much better than
this. It tied up various inconsitancies and didn't have Hal flip out into
a power crazed loon (though with all the mind control retcons Hal got in
Action his mental instability is understandable, problem is next to no one
seems to have read Action Weekly).
Now we have the plot of Kyle going out to recreate the GLC. This will be
the third time that DC has tried to bring back the GLC. Now in the
context of ideas and characters not working hy is DC doing this for a
third time? If the GLC consept didn't sale the first two times what is
going to make it sale -this- time?
Scott Hollifield
wrote:
>>From: scot...@mindspring.com (Scott Hollifield)
>
>>It's not this cut-and-dried, though. Say, if Superman suddenly became
>>a black or Asian man without explanation -- you don't think that would
>>throw even the casual reader out of the story?
>
>Of course, because Superman is a cultural icon. Similarly, readers would be
>"thrown out of the story" if Charlie Brown suddenly became a girl.
How about if Green Lantern suddenly became Asian? How about if Carol
Ferris suddenly became Asian? What if Carol Ferris suddenly became an
investment banker? You see? It's not cut-and-dried. It's a matter
of degrees.
Where we'd disagree, then, is on the minimum required prominence of a
detail such that it shouldn't be changed arbitrarily without a
reasonable explanation.
--
Scott Hollifield
Scott Hollifield
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>BillM414 (bill...@aol.com) wrote:
>: I'd agree with that, but I don't see why continuity is inconsistant with good
>: stories. (or am I reading too much into the foregoing?)
>
>It's not *necessarily* inconsistent with good storytelling, but it's not
>necessarily *needed* in order to tell a good story, and it often gets in
>the way and bogs down a good story, if the writer gets too caught up in
>details that he/she misses the forest for the trees.
A story in which continuity gets in the way and bogs it down is, by my
definition, not a good story, since the storytelling is hampered.
--
Scott Hollifield
David W. Stepp
scot...@mindspring.com (Scott Hollifield) wrote:
> A story in which continuity gets in the way and bogs it down is, by my
> definition, not a good story, since the storytelling is hampered.
continuity.
D.
Nathan Sanders
In article <70297u$6...@panix3.panix.com>,
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>So? The art is part of the serial as well, and nobody here seems to get
>hung up on art details the way they get hung up on story details.
I seem to remember many complaints about a scene in JLA in which Porter
drew Martian Manhunter's chair to the left (or right) of Green Lantern's,
but in the next panel, the order was reversed.
And I would get hung up on an art detail if it mattered to the story. For
example, if a villain named Mister Thirteen went after Batman because he
wanted his cape with 13 points --- yet in the art, Batman's cape has 14.
*That's* the level of continuity most of us continuity freaks seem to
care about. When the story seems to think it's important (the Fiddler
has a powered fiddle *and* Jay Garrick must remember the specified date
of 1942; or the Thinker is on his detah bed), then I treat it as
important when I read it.
Nathan
Scott Hollifield
I honestly don't know of any, and more importantly, I'm not sure that
such a story could be "fixed" without being substantially rewritten.
--
Scott Hollifield
Carl Fink
>
>It's not. An overreliance on it as the basis for stories is, however,
>inconsistent with developing a new reader base.
If you had just said this from the beginning, a lot of argument could
have been avoided. (You did not.)
The Icicle
scot...@mindspring.com (Scott Hollifield) wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 14:48:19 -0500, dst...@post.its.mcw.edu.NOSPAM
> (David W. Stepp) wrote:
>
> >In article <3624f6d3...@news.mindspring.com>,
> >scot...@mindspring.com (Scott Hollifield) wrote:
> >
> >> A story in which continuity gets in the way and bogs it down is, by my
> >> definition, not a good story, since the storytelling is hampered.
> >
> > Name a story that fits that description and fix it with and without
> >continuity.
>
> I honestly don't know of any, and more importantly, I'm not sure that
> such a story could be "fixed" without being substantially rewritten.
So what you are saying then, is what the rest of us are saying, namely
that's not detail, it's writing. I cannot think of a tale that I thought
could have been told no other way than to egregiously change something or
ignore a previous set of stories. A stray one, yes but a line of tales?
Most are manageable.
D.
--
"I find that you do better by your characters when you just love them and live with them than you do when you try to freeze everything in place and revere them to death." _ Eliot S! Maggin, on character development in comics
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Comic Archives
http://www.execpc.com/~icicle/main.html
#1 Internet Source of Information of DC's Golden Age Heroes
The Icicle
patdo...@aol.comnospam (PatDOneill) wrote:
> >From: bill...@aol.com (BillM414)
>
> >I'd agree with that, but I don't see why continuity is inconsistant with good
> >stories. (or am I reading too much into the foregoing?)
>
> It's not. An overreliance on it as the basis for stories is, however,
> inconsistent with developing a new reader base.
>
> >too often lately the story in a
> >given issue is merely there as a device and the continuity is the real
> >'highlight' of the issue
>
> Gee, hope you get a more positive response to this observation than I usually
> do.
Damn, Pat O'Neill is a liar. Let's replay that again for the fans. What
BillM *really* said was:
"I don't see why continuity is inconsistant with good
stories. (or am I reading too much into the foregoing?)
The big change I think they need to make is not requiring familiarity with
everything that has gone before in order to understand the story. Continuity
should be subtext, not the main story, and too often lately the story in a
given issue is merely there as a device and the continuity is the real
'highlight' of the issue."
Amazing how you can change the meaning of things with a few clips, no?
The truth is that (with one or two exceptions) everyone arguing
*Against* Pat has said that continuity should be sub-text. No one really
wants to read stories *about* continuity. Doubt me? Check the reviews for
JLA SECRET FILES #3. The lead story (and indeed, only story) was basically
an excuse to replay old continuity and almost everyone in the argument for
continuity, scorned that story. Again, no one wants to read about
continuity, as that would be dull.
What Bill is suggesting is *not* what anyone here is arguing as
continuity. I am not sure what the word for it is but the "endless middle"
syndrome, i.e. requiring knowledge of the past 6 months worth of issues to
watch the plot advance 10 microns in the current issue *is* what's hurting
comics. Virtually everyone on RAC has argued that making someone pay $25
and wait 6 months to tell a single story is a tactic that simply won't be
rewarded. What no one, and esp not Pat, has ever demonstrated was one
single story that could not have been told without adhering to the history
of characters as presented to DC Comics readers. Comics need that faux
sense of history to help a serial medium make the leap from imaginary to
believable. Indeed, seems to me the reverse is what is happening now.
Continuity is *not* be strictly (or even vaguely) adhered to and sales are
going down as things become less and less believable (cloned Aunt May?).
Oddly people who are buying the comics *now* are getting bitched at.
Sounds to me like the preachers who bitch *after* Easter than people only
come to church for holidays. They shouldn't be too surpised when that
offering plate comes back a little empty.
PatDOneill
>An overreliance on it [continuity] as the basis for stories is, however,
>>inconsistent with developing a new reader base.
>
>If you had just said this from the beginning, a lot of argument could
>have been avoided. (You did not.)
That has always been my case; perhaps you simply didn't read past the
misinterpretations.
Scott Hollifield
>In article <36252acf....@news.mindspring.com>,
>scot...@mindspring.com (Scott Hollifield) wrote:
>> I honestly don't know of any [stories that were bad because they
>>were bogged down by continuity], and more importantly, I'm not sure
>>that such a story could be "fixed" without being substantially rewritten.
>
> So what you are saying then, is what the rest of us are saying, namely
>that's not detail, it's writing.
That's what I've always said. My original post in this thread was
meant to point out what I saw as a fallacy in something Elayne said,
which was that continuity is "not *necessarily* inconsistent with good
storytelling, but it's not necessarily *needed* in order to tell a
good story, and it often gets in the way and bogs down a good
story..."
--
Scott Hollifield
Dan McEwen
wrote:
>>From: ca...@panix.com (Carl Fink)
>
>>An overreliance on it [continuity] as the basis for stories is, however,
>>>inconsistent with developing a new reader base.
>>
>>If you had just said this from the beginning, a lot of argument could
>>have been avoided. (You did not.)
>
>That has always been my case; perhaps you simply didn't read past the
>misinterpretations.
In the past, you said continuity was bad. Period. That's a
significant departure from the above.
PatDOneill
>In the past, you said continuity was bad. Period. That's a
>significant departure from the above.
No, I never said that. Read again. I said "an obsessive continuity" or "an
obsession with continuity" is bad.
David W. Stepp
patdo...@aol.comnospam (PatDOneill) wrote:
> >From: fe...@lsh.org (Dan McEwen)
>
> >In the past, you said continuity was bad. Period. That's a
> >significant departure from the above.
>
> No, I never said that. Read again. I said "an obsessive continuity" or "an
> obsession with continuity" is bad.
Don't be such a spineless weasel, Pattycakes. You've defined obsessive
continuity fans broadly enough to be in discordance with BillM's
statement. It's bad enough that you try to pass yourself off as a pro and
make these error-ridden proclamations, but you should at least have the
balls to stand up for your own worthless ideas.
D.
Carl Fink
<dst...@post.its.mcw.edu.NOSPAM> wrote:
> Don't be such a spineless weasel, Pattycakes.
<TWEET!> Yellow card to Mr. Stepp, irrelevant personal insult!
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: >From: ca...@panix.com (Carl Fink)
: >An overreliance on it [continuity] as the basis for stories is, however,
: >>inconsistent with developing a new reader base.
: >
: >If you had just said this from the beginning, a lot of argument could
: >have been avoided. (You did not.)
: That has always been my case; perhaps you simply didn't read past the
: misinterpretations.
Pat, next time PLEASE consider saying something like "That has always been
my case; my apologies if I didn't make myself as clear as I should have."
Accept some responsibility for your own words, man, rather than time and
again blaming the miscommunication on others.
PatDOneill
>my case; my apologies if I didn't make myself as clear as I should have."
>Accept some responsibility for your own words, man, rather than time and
>again blaming the miscommunication on others.
I believe I have always been clear about this. I certainly never said anything
like "Continuity is bad. Period."
Dan McEwen
wrote:
>>From: fe...@lsh.org (Dan McEwen)
>
>>In the past, you said continuity was bad. Period. That's a
>>significant departure from the above.
>
>No, I never said that. Read again. I said "an obsessive continuity" or "an
>obsession with continuity" is bad.
No, obsessive came later. Initially, you made it quite clear that
*anyway* who cared about continuity was obsessive. Ergo...
Dan McEwen
wrote:
>>Pat, next time PLEASE consider saying something like "That has always been
>>my case; my apologies if I didn't make myself as clear as I should have."
>>Accept some responsibility for your own words, man, rather than time and
>>again blaming the miscommunication on others.
>
>I believe I have always been clear about this. I certainly never said anything
>like "Continuity is bad. Period."
Right. You just call anyone who cares about continuity "obsessive".
Kind of hard to see the difference.
Jon Clark
>John Kenneth Fisher (JohnKFis...@FortMonmouth.Army.net) wrote:
>
>: When I read a comic, I don't care about minor flubs...
>: What does bother me are blatantly
>: ignoring major events. Acting like a villian is new when I KNOW I saw him
>: about a year ago. Just arbitrarily deciding to change origins.
>
>Understood, but what seems like an obvious "bare minimum" to you or me
>sometimes doesn't even register as a blip on casual readers' radar. That's
>all I'm trying to impart-- that what we as regular readers may consider
>"major events" aren't going to faze occasional readers, they're not
>interested in following the DCU to that extent. They just want to read a
>fun and entertaining story. Whether Cruella deVille appeared in THOSE
>DARN DOGS #16 as a black woman and in GET THEM DALMATIANS! #8 as Asian
>doesn't even matter at this interest level; all they want to know is who
>she is and what her function is in the one book they're reading.
>
But is there any reason why Cruella DeVille should be shown as both a black
woman and as an Asian woman? The casual reader wouldn't care if there was
consistency in her appearance, while the more habitual reader might.
I can understand saying that requiring the reader to know years of back story
to follow a story is going to cut down on new readers. I don't see how asking
the creative team to keep things straight would hurt sales.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: Elayne wrote:
: >John Kenneth Fisher (JohnKFis...@FortMonmouth.Army.net) wrote:
: >
: >: When I read a comic, I don't care about minor flubs...
: >: What does bother me are blatantly
: >: ignoring major events. Acting like a villian is new when I KNOW I saw him
: >: about a year ago. Just arbitrarily deciding to change origins.
: >
: >Understood, but what seems like an obvious "bare minimum" to you or me
: >sometimes doesn't even register as a blip on casual readers' radar. That's
: >all I'm trying to impart-- that what we as regular readers may consider
: >"major events" aren't going to faze occasional readers, they're not
: >interested in following the DCU to that extent. They just want to read a
: >fun and entertaining story. Whether Cruella deVille appeared in THOSE
: >DARN DOGS #16 as a black woman and in GET THEM DALMATIANS! #8 as Asian
: >doesn't even matter at this interest level; all they want to know is who
: >she is and what her function is in the one book they're reading.
: >
: But is there any reason why Cruella DeVille should be shown as both a black
: woman and as an Asian woman?
Artistic license? Because maybe it doesn't matter to the artist and
editor whether she's black or Asian as much as it matters whether the
story she appears in is good?
Carl Fink
>
>Artistic license? Because maybe it doesn't matter to the artist and
>editor whether she's black or Asian as much as it matters whether the
>story she appears in is good?
Elayne, you realize what the above reads as: "It doesn't matter if it
bugs a significant percentage of the *reader*. The important thing is
how the artist feels."
I hope that's not what you meant . . . but it's what I read.
OmarsFury
>Elayne, you realize what the above reads as: "It doesn't matter if it
>bugs a significant percentage of the *reader*. The important thing is
>how the artist feels."
That's okay, idiot. Other smarter people on here realize that your own personal
feelings don't reflect a significant percentage of anything but that's okay,
you never did win any awards for intelligence.
ConnMoore
>personal
>feelings don't reflect a significant percentage of anything but that's okay,
>you never did win any awards for intelligence.
Omar knows other smarter people? If they are so smart why don't they put Omar
down?
You know, like that kid had to do at the end of "Old Yeller".
I think Omar confuses the ability to interact with humans as a basis for
intelligence. Since he is incapapble of it he is amazed by it.
Kind of sad when you think about it. Omar sitting in front of moms computer,
confused and stunned at the regular humans conversing nicely. Perplexed as to
why the gods of genetics decided to deal him so short. Wait..self awareness is
a little above his Cro-Magnon disposition. This could never happen.
Never mind.
Barry
OmarsFury
>Omar
>down?
>You know, like that kid had to do at the end of "Old Yeller".
>I think Omar confuses the ability to interact with humans as a basis for
>intelligence. Since he is incapapble of it he is amazed by it.
>Kind of sad when you think about it. Omar sitting in front of moms computer,
>confused and stunned at the regular humans conversing nicely. Perplexed as
>to
>why the gods of genetics decided to deal him so short. Wait..self awareness
>is
>a little above his Cro-Magnon disposition. This could never happen.
>
>Never mind.
>
>Barry
>
>
You know, "Barry" with every post you attempt to be more and more witty while
appearing less and less clever and mature than a three year old. How do you
manage to make such an inane ass of yourself?
Kevin J. Maroney
>I believe I have always been clear about this. I certainly never said anything
>like "Continuity is bad. Period."
In repsonse to the question "Why is continuity important?", you
answered:
>Because too many people involved in readng and collecting comics (especially
>many of those involved in newsgroup discussion) are seriously devoid of a real
>life.
This doesn't make any allowance for the possibility that there are
reasons why continuity is important that *don't* involve the reader
being "seriously devoid of a real life".
So, no, you may never have used the words "Continuity is bad. Period."
But you've certainly expressed the sentiment, whether intending to or
not.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Crossover Technologies | kmar...@crossover.com
"There is a better world. There has to be."--Kay Challis
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: On 17 Oct 1998 11:12:15 -0400, Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: >
: >Artistic license? Because maybe it doesn't matter to the artist and
: >editor whether she's black or Asian as much as it matters whether the
: >story she appears in is good?
: Elayne, you realize what the above reads as: "It doesn't matter if it
: bugs a significant percentage of the *reader*. The important thing is
: how the artist feels."
: I hope that's not what you meant . . . but it's what I read.
No, it's not what I meant at all. I meant "It doesn't matter TO THE
STORY, particuarly if the reader is unfamiliar with Cruella continuity
anyway, whether she's black in this book and Asian in another." When it
*does* matter to the story, then of course it's a consideration.
Jon Clark
>
>Carl Fink (ca...@panix.com) wrote:
>: On 17 Oct 1998 11:12:15 -0400, Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
>: <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>: >
>: >Artistic license? Because maybe it doesn't matter to the artist and
>: >editor whether she's black or Asian as much as it matters whether the
>: >story she appears in is good?
>
>: Elayne, you realize what the above reads as: "It doesn't matter if it
>: bugs a significant percentage of the *reader*. The important thing is
>: how the artist feels."
>
>: I hope that's not what you meant . . . but it's what I read.
>
>No, it's not what I meant at all. I meant "It doesn't matter TO THE
>STORY, particuarly if the reader is unfamiliar with Cruella continuity
>anyway, whether she's black in this book and Asian in another." When it
>*does* matter to the story, then of course it's a consideration.
Well if it doesn't "matter to the story" why not err on the side of caution and
draw the character consistently as either black or Asian?
Unless you are trying to make it clear that Cruella isn't the same woman (EX.
in an Elseworlds-type story) why change the look?
And to a degree I can see that affecting the story. If I am supposed to know
the villianess is Cruella and upon seeing an Asian woman as opposed to a black
one I become confused and assume she is a new character........
Just my opinion- but I don't see the need to change something just because you
can do so. If you keep Cruella consistent it won't lose you readers, but you
might lose readers if you arbitrarily change things.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: Elayne Wechsler-Chaput writes:
: >No, it's not what I meant at all. I meant "It doesn't matter TO THE
: >STORY, particuarly if the reader is unfamiliar with Cruella continuity
: >anyway, whether she's black in this book and Asian in another." When it
: >*does* matter to the story, then of course it's a consideration.
: Well if it doesn't "matter to the story" why not err on the side of
: caution and draw the character consistently as either black or Asian?
Because, if it doesn't matter, you're not "erring" on either side, you're
just telling enjoyable stories.
JohannaLD
>I meant "It doesn't matter TO THE
>STORY, particuarly if the reader is unfamiliar with Cruella continuity
>anyway, whether she's black in this book and Asian in another."
Cruella deVille? The woman trying to kill a bunch of dogs? I'd say
that it did matter to the story whether or not she came from a culture
that in the past has eaten dogs. :)
But this is really the question -- where do you draw the line on whether
or not pure character description affects the story. A woman is likely
to respond differently to a threat than a man is in our culture, in many
cases. So does simply deciding what sex your character is affect the
story? Some say yes, some say no.
Johanna
Carl Fink
<fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>Because, if it doesn't matter, you're not "erring" on either side, you're
>just telling enjoyable stories.
But it does matter TO THE READER. Or don't you think the purpose of
writing stories is communication, producing an effect in the reader?
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: On 19 Oct 1998 09:57:26 -0400, Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
: >Because, if it doesn't matter, you're not "erring" on either side, you're
: >just telling enjoyable stories.
: But it does matter TO THE READER.
I submit that it doesn't. It matters to YOU and some other readers. It
doesn't matter at all to more casual ones. That's kinda been the point
all along.
Carl Fink
<fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>Carl Fink (ca...@panix.com) wrote:
>: But it does matter TO THE READER.
>
>I submit that it doesn't. It matters to YOU and some other readers. It
>doesn't matter at all to more casual ones. That's kinda been the point
>all along.
I submit that you have no evidence whatever here.
Obviously I didn't mean "all possible readers", but why alienate even
a substantial minority? Is it *that* difficult to hire a competent
editor or five?
Brian H. Bailie
> On 21 Oct 1998 11:12:46 -0400, Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
> <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
> >Carl Fink (ca...@panix.com) wrote:
>
> >: But it does matter TO THE READER.
> >
> >I submit that it doesn't. It matters to YOU and some other readers. It
> >doesn't matter at all to more casual ones. That's kinda been the point
> >all along.
>
> I submit that you have no evidence whatever here.
>
> Obviously I didn't mean "all possible readers", but why alienate even
> a substantial minority? Is it *that* difficult to hire a competent
> editor or five?
Absolutely. This is such a no-brainer to me, I'm mystified by people who
don't get it.
You have one group, the casual reader, that continuity makes NO difference
to whatsoever. They don't care. Fine. They're going to read the book
whether it's there or not.
You have a second group, the devoted ready, that continuity DOES matter
to. They're likely to drop the book if it goes awry.
If you put out a book that has NO dedicated continuity, you'll get the
casual reader.
If you put out a book that HAS a dedicated continuity you'll get the
casual reader *AND* the dedicated reader.
Why on earth would you do anything except the latter? It just makes no
logical sense whatsoever.
Brian
--
As a dreamer of dreams, and a travelin' man
I have chalked up many a mile.
I've read dozens of books about heroes and crooks
And I've learned much from both of their styles.
- J. Buffett
Dan McEwen
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>Carl Fink (ca...@panix.com) wrote:
>: On 19 Oct 1998 09:57:26 -0400, Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
>: <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>: >Because, if it doesn't matter, you're not "erring" on either side, you're
>: >just telling enjoyable stories.
>
>: But it does matter TO THE READER.
>
>I submit that it doesn't. It matters to YOU and some other readers. It
>doesn't matter at all to more casual ones. That's kinda been the point
>all along.
Yet if you can please the casual reader *and* the on-going reader all
in one fell swoop, why *wouldn't* you do that?
PatDOneill
>If you put out a book that has NO dedicated continuity, you'll get the
>casual reader.
>
>If you put out a book that HAS a dedicated continuity you'll get the
>casual reader *AND* the dedicated reader.
>
>Why on earth would you do anything except the latter? It just makes no
>logical sense whatsoever.
>
Because if you overdo the continuity (and I submit that only overdoing it
really satisfies the current crop of continuity-obsessed fans)
you alienate the casual reader who is not interested in having to understand an
entire universe in order to understand one story.
And the number of potential casual readers is hundreds of times greater than
the number of dedicated fans.
Dan McEwen
wrote:
>>From: bba...@erols.com (Brian H. Bailie)
>
>>If you put out a book that has NO dedicated continuity, you'll get the
>>casual reader.
>>
>>If you put out a book that HAS a dedicated continuity you'll get the
>>casual reader *AND* the dedicated reader.
>>
>>Why on earth would you do anything except the latter? It just makes no
>>logical sense whatsoever.
>>
>
>Because if you overdo the continuity
There you go again. You pretty much equate a dedicated continuity to
"overgoing it". It doesn't have to be the case.
David W. Stepp
patdo...@aol.comnospam (PatDOneill) wrote:
> Because if you overdo the continuity (and I submit that only overdoing it
> really satisfies the current crop of continuity-obsessed fans)
> you alienate the casual reader who is not interested in having to
understand an
> entire universe in order to understand one story.
>
> And the number of potential casual readers is hundreds of times greater than
> the number of dedicated fans.
For those of you just tuning in, a few facts are helpful:
1) Pat can neither find, identify or even adequately describe "casual
readers" in a testable way, much less quantifable ones.
2) Pat cannot describe "dedicated fan" in any terms other than those that
fit his arguments.
3) Pat cannot describe a story, much less a majority of them, that
"overdoes continuity" more than ER, Soap operas, comics in the 1960's or
even South Park. He therefore cannot ascribe the woes of the industry to
this problem.
Pat hopes you might take him seriously because he appears to work for
Wizard. He does not and has less expertise than the average comics reader
as judged by these arguments. FYI.
D.
PatDOneill
>>Because if you overdo the continuity
>
>There you go again. You pretty much equate a dedicated continuity to
>"overgoing it". It doesn't have to be the case.
>
>
Unfortunately, by the opinions I see expressed by continuity-obsessed fans,
yes, it does. Anything less than absolute adherence to continuity, and
story-length explanations of departure therefrom, is considered "bad writing".
Hence, any attempt to update a character or concept for the modern reader, or
to bring back a long-unused villain, requires a full issue of exposition about
fictional history.
David W. Stepp
patdo...@aol.comnospam (PatDOneill) wrote:
> Hence, any attempt to update a character or concept for the modern reader, or
> to bring back a long-unused villain, requires a full issue of exposition about
> fictional history.
This is basically a lie. Pat's arguments require carrying issues to
extremes to justify the draconian measures he has in mind for the
industry. Not one single person in this audience as ever required a "full
issue of exposition" on anything, simply consistency with that which they
recognize. Everyone who counters Pat is on record (that is, you can check
and see for yourself) as weighting continuity against other issues. Pat is
not speaking to me because he always loses arguments in which I am a
part. If anyone else wants to kick his ass, simply ask him to find an
example. I will then fortify your argument with Dejanews articles and
other data you can cite. A good argument can be tested, and Pat's cannot.
Contrary to what Pat would have you believe, he isn't an expert on
anything.
D.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: On 21 Oct 1998 11:12:46 -0400, Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: >: But it does matter TO THE READER.
: >
: >I submit that it doesn't. It matters to YOU and some other readers. It
: >doesn't matter at all to more casual ones. That's kinda been the point
: >all along.
: I submit that you have no evidence whatever here.
Only anecdotal, I'm afraid.
: Obviously I didn't mean "all possible readers", but why alienate even
: a substantial minority? Is it *that* difficult to hire a competent
: editor or five?
Just because an editor chooses to concentrate on story rather than minor
continuity points doesn't make him or her incompetent. It may just mean
they have different priorities than some fans.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: On 21 Oct 1998 11:12:46 -0400, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
: Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
: >Carl Fink (ca...@panix.com) wrote:
: >: On 19 Oct 1998 09:57:26 -0400, Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: >: <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
: >
: >: >Because, if it doesn't matter, you're not "erring" on either side, you're
: >: >just telling enjoyable stories.
: >
: >: But it does matter TO THE READER.
: >
: >I submit that it doesn't. It matters to YOU and some other readers. It
: >doesn't matter at all to more casual ones. That's kinda been the point
: >all along.
: Yet if you can please the casual reader *and* the on-going reader all
: in one fell swoop, why *wouldn't* you do that?
Well, it depends on how far out of your way you'd have to go to do so.
Theoretically, yeah, that stuff is great if you can pull it off. But it
takes being able to see things from two viewpoints (the casual reader and
the loyal fan), and for the more obscure and minor stuff it also takes
time. Those are two commodities not possessed by many people.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: If you put out a book that HAS a dedicated continuity you'll get the
: casual reader *AND* the dedicated reader.
I thought the argument went, if you put out a book that HAS a dedicated
continuity, you'll get only the dedicated reader, and the casual readers
will leave in droves because a dedicated continuity often works against
their interests (those interests being, just to read a complete story in
one issue that has nothing to do with any stories anywhere else).
Peter Meilinger
: >From: fe...@lsh.org (Dan McEwen)
: >There you go again. You pretty much equate a dedicated continuity to
: >"overgoing it". It doesn't have to be the case.
: >
:Unfortunately, by the opinions I see expressed by continuity-obsessed fans,
:yes, it does. Anything less than absolute adherence to continuity, and
:story-length explanations of departure therefrom, is considered "bad writing".
Pat, I've asked you several times to back up statements like this with
proof. Quote me a quote from someone (actually make it two someones to
satisfy the defintions of "fans" plural) that supports your position.
Until you do so, you'll have to accept that very few people are going
to take you seriously.
Pete