Archie and Continuity (was Re: Sales and Lower Prices)
jken...@himail.hcc.com
In <19971030171...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, shut...@aol.com (ShutUpRob) writes:
>I seriously
>doubt that even casual readers want to see superhero comics
>abandon the realistic[1] storytelling mode that they've been in
>since the rise of Marvel in the early '60's.
Not to mention the Lesla Lar story in "Action".
>[1] And for the contextually impaired -- this means you, Pat
>-- "realistic," as in "realism," describes the storytelling style,
>not the concept of superheroes themselves.
Was it C. S. Lewis who distinguished between "Realism of Content"
and "Realism of Presentation"?
John W. Kennedy - HiServ NA - Team OS/2 - (The OS/2 Hobbit) - TIPA
IBMMAIL: USAHC29S IBMLink: NAAO3IY "Compact is becoming contract;
CompuServe: 75136,1413 Prodigy: MTMV04A Man only earns and pays."
X.400: US Telemail Hoechst AOL: WillmoreRv -- Charles Williams
Mikko Aittola
shut...@aol.com (ShutUpRob) writes:
> Well, you hit the nail on the head. Lack of continuity in the
> Archie comics is fine because they aren't realistic -- they're in
> a completely different mode altogether. OTOH, superhero
> comics in general *are* in a realistic mode and I seriously
> doubt that even casual readers want to see superhero comics
> abandon the realistic[1] storytelling mode that they've been in
> since the rise of Marvel in the early '60's.
Yeah, you have a nail on your head or something like that.
Anyway, I'd recommend seeing a doctor ASAP... :)
Are you *sure* about the stuff you wrote above???
Let me ask a question:
DC Comics full with flying people, people with strange
powers, Gods, Amazon's, Apokolips, Demons and whatnot are
MORE realistic than Archie Comics?
You gotta be kidding!
Next thing you say is that Bark's Ducks are funny animal
comics...
/Mikko
PatDOneill
In article <19971030171...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
shut...@aol.com (ShutUpRob) writes:
>[1] And for the contextually impaired -- this means you, Pat
>-- "realistic," as in "realism," describes the storytelling style,
>not the concept of superheroes themselves.
Crap, Rob. The storytelling style of Archie is just as realistic--
conceivably more so--as any superhero book. Cartooning is
cartooning. Are you saying the same story drawn by, say,
Ty Templeton is less realistic than one drawn by, say,
Neal Adams?
Even if plot, dialogue, even page layout, are identical?
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
In article <dstepp-3110...@d558-1.phys.mcw.edu>,
dst...@post.its.mcw.edu.DIESPAMMERS! (David W. Stepp) writes:
> Here's a novel idea, Pat. Why don't you try to find evidence that this
>imaginary fan base will actually show yp before you ask us to make
>egregious sacrifices and the industry to basically buy your pig-in-a-poke?
>You can't? But you want to be taken seriously anyway? Discontinuous with
>reality, which is why current audiences don't buy in.
I can produce clear evidence that it isn't showing up now. Therefore,
something different needs to be done.
AaronMojo1
>The Archie books have
>plausible situations, but are not written realistically. If they were,
>they'd have a lot more drugs and sex.
What Archie comics YOU been reading?? Ones up here gots Betty getting
knocked up by different football player each week... Veronica hooking Archie
and Jughead up with someone what can get them they "fix" be it pot, heroin or
-- last Annual -- crack. Me buy them for me kids! Fun for whole family!
------- Bizarro No. 1 -------
[This am been transmission from Bizarro Outernet - Like AOL with TWICE THE
MEMBERS and HALF THE WIT!]
The Icicle
In article <19971101210...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) wrote:
> In article <dstepp-3110...@d558-1.phys.mcw.edu>,
> dst...@post.its.mcw.edu.DIESPAMMERS! (David W. Stepp) writes:
>
> > Here's a novel idea, Pat. Why don't you try to find evidence that this
> >imaginary fan base will actually show yp before you ask us to make
> >egregious sacrifices and the industry to basically buy your pig-in-a-poke?
> >You can't? But you want to be taken seriously anyway? Discontinuous with
> >reality, which is why current audiences don't buy in.
>
> I can produce clear evidence that it isn't showing up now. Therefore,
> something different needs to be done.
I can produce evidence that dragons are flying in the air above
Milwaukee. I conclude they don't exist. I can produce evidence that
dinosaurs died out years ago. I conclude they no longer exist.
Pat, I started out on your concluding you don't know shit about stats.
I am beginning to wonder if you know shit about anything. I defy you to
show me evidence that the adult audience of comics was more than 50%
larger than it is right now. I defy you to defeat the thesis that that the
roughly 3-6 million fans we have lost since the 1960's is not mainly
children carried off by video games and distanced by the DM in
accessibility and cover price. You're supposedly a journalist in the
comics field Pat but I'll be damned if I can see any proof of it. I have
given you several oppurtunities to use your journalistic accumen to
provide us with some evidence of virtually anything and all you've done is
waste our time. And you wonder why no one takes you seriously?
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
ShutUpRob
In article <asveenst-301...@usr1-27.portup.com>,
asve...@mtu.edu (Aaron S. Veenstra) writes:
>
>In article <idnbu07...@beta.hut.fi>, Mikko Aittola
><mait...@beta.hut.fi> wrote:
>
>> shut...@aol.com (ShutUpRob) writes:
>> > Well, you hit the nail on the head. Lack of continuity in the
>> > Archie comics is fine because they aren't realistic -- they're in
>> > a completely different mode altogether. OTOH, superhero
>> > comics in general *are* in a realistic mode and I seriously
>> > doubt that even casual readers want to see superhero comics
>> > abandon the realistic[1] storytelling mode that they've been in
>> > since the rise of Marvel in the early '60's.
>>
>> Are you *sure* about the stuff you wrote above???
>>
>> Let me ask a question:
>>
>> DC Comics full with flying people, people with strange
>> powers, Gods, Amazon's, Apokolips, Demons and whatnot are
>> MORE realistic than Archie Comics?
>
>It's funny how everyone seems to be not reading Rob's footnote. The point
>is that these comics are realistically written. Realism of Presentation,
>not Realism of Content, as someone else noted. The Archie books have
>plausible situations, but are not written realistically. If they were,
>they'd have a lot more drugs and sex.
And they'd be titled "Cherry Poptart." =)
Thanks for pointing out my footnote. It's amazing how many people
jump to conclusions without reading a statement thoroughly. Moreover,
you're dead-on about the difference between form and content.
Of course, it's not as if Mikko's ever read anything for comprehension,
either.
-- Rob Jensen
=========================================
"What people ARE asking for is a story that reads just as
well whether you are familiar with the previous works or not."
-- Jason Fliegel, on comic books
Mikko Aittola
Duggy <sci-...@jcu.edu.au> writes:
> He said STORY TELLING STYLE. He did not mention the art.
No matter how you look at it: Archie stuff is more realistic
compared to superheroes.
/Mikko
PatDOneill
In article <icicle-0111...@jaresh-42.mdm.mke.execpc.com>,
ici...@execpc.com (The Icicle) writes:
> Pat, I started out on your concluding you don't know shit about stats.
>I am beginning to wonder if you know shit about anything. I defy you to
>show me evidence that the adult audience of comics was more than 50%
>larger than it is right now. I defy you to defeat the thesis that that the
>roughly 3-6 million fans we have lost since the 1960's is not mainly
>children carried off by video games and distanced by the DM in
>accessibility and cover price. You're supposedly a journalist in the
>comics field Pat but I'll be damned if I can see any proof of it. I have
>given you several oppurtunities to use your journalistic accumen to
>provide us with some evidence of virtually anything and all you've done is
>waste our time. And you wonder why no one takes you seriously?
We HAVE lost the kids you talk about...and we've lost them, in part,
because we've made comics too damned hard to follow. We've made
comics into an obsessive purchase instead of a casual one.
How many CDs would teens buy if the ability to listen and understand
any one of them required buying another dozen? How many video
games would pre-teens buy if you needed six of them to play a
single game...instead of just one?
We're not going to get comics back into their hands--no matter the
price and no matter the availability--if we don't make the content
as accessible as the content of the other things kids buy.
Eric Sturgeon
In article <19971102175...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
PatDOneill <patdo...@aol.com> wrote:
>I reiterate: The CONTENT of JLA is more realistic than the content of
>Archie...because the Archie titles ignore the baser aspects of teen
>culture?
>
No, you moron. You are missing the point *again*. How did someone with
such pitiful reading comprehension skills ever graduate high school,
much less become a professional columnist?
The CONTENT of JLA is *far* more unrealistic than the content of
Archie...But the PRESENTATION of JLA is far more realistic than the
presentation of Archie. In JLA, we have a writer saying, "Okay, now
how would real people react within this fantasy situation?" In Archie
we have a writer saying, "Okay, now how would fantasy characters react
within this real-life situation?" JLA and Archie are both fantasies.
The difference between the two is which aspect of the book is
fantastic.
>Rubbish.
I agree, every word that you post to these groups is rubbish.
Eric "Stirge" Sturgeon
andrew (MELBOURNE)
PatDOneill (patdo...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <Pine.OSF.3.93.97110...@sailfish.jcu.edu.au>,
: >
: >He said STORY TELLING STYLE. He did not mention the art.
: That what does he mean by the story telling style? What is the
: difference in "story-telling" between Archie and JLA if it
: isn't the way the characters are portrayed visually?
Here we have a definition problem. In comics, "storytelling" is a
technical term that refers to translating full or partial script into
panels on a page. In every other situation it simply means "how the story
is told".
Those arguing that Archie is less realistic than JLA are OBVIOUSLY
talking about the latter definition, and Pat is either being pedantic to
the point of making an ass out of himself or just plain stupid not to be
able to see that.
--Andrew
______________________________________________________________________________
Andrew Melbourne (215) 417-8354 PO Box 375
-jack-of-trades- melb...@sas.upenn.edu 3910 Irving Street
available at-> http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~melbourn Philadelphia, PA 19104
Aaron S. Veenstra
In article <idnsotf...@beta.hut.fi>, Mikko Aittola
<mait...@beta.hut.fi> wrote:
> shut...@aol.com (ShutUpRob) writes:
> > Thanks for pointing out my footnote. It's amazing how many people
> > jump to conclusions without reading a statement thoroughly. Moreover,
> > you're dead-on about the difference between form and content.
>
> Bullshit. Superhero comics aren't anywhere near realistic.
> Archie comics are. Whether drugs are mentioned or not doesn't
> matter.
So what you're saying is that, whether or not anything from real life is
used, Archie books are realistic. Thank you for using the Ostrich-Head
Debating Service; it's a boon to us all.
Aaron
--
Looking for high quality mind control software for your Mac?
Check out OpenMind 1.0! A demo is available from Etc. House
Productions at http://www.portup.com/~etchouse/openmind/.
ShutUpRob
In article <idnvhyb...@beta.hut.fi>, Mikko Aittola
<mait...@beta.hut.fi> writes:
>
>Duggy <sci-...@jcu.edu.au> writes:
>> He said STORY TELLING STYLE. He did not mention the art.
>
>
> No matter how you look at it: Archie stuff is more realistic
> compared to superheroes.
"Jane, you ignorant slut . . . take some writing classes
so that you can learn to tell the difference between form (including
style) and content."
ShutUpRob
In article <asveenst-021...@usr2-93.portup.com>,
asve...@mtu.edu (Aaron S. Veenstra) writes:
>
>In article <19971102051...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>shut...@aol.com (ShutUpRob) wrote:
>
>> You are forgetting something. On Earth, the Archie Comics that you
>> read on Bizarro World are called "Cherry Poptart" and the kiddie comics
>> that you know as "Cherry Poptart" are Archie Comics. The Archies
>> that we've been talking about are pornography on Bizarro World, not
>> the wholesome, drug and sex-filled kiddie comics to which you're
>> accustomed.
>>
>> Hope that helps.
>
>Head reeling... confusion... advancing... Must try to... figure out...
>how THUNDERBOLTS can be... Code approved...
Did I mention that my codename is "Double Negative?"
ShutUpRob
In article <19971102175...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) writes:
>
>In article <19971102051...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>shut...@aol.com (ShutUpRob) writes:
>
>>>It's funny how everyone seems to be not reading Rob's footnote. The point
>>>is that these comics are realistically written. Realism of Presentation,
>>>not Realism of Content, as someone else noted. The Archie books have
>>>plausible situations, but are not written realistically. If they were,
>>>they'd have a lot more drugs and sex.
>>
>> And they'd be titled "Cherry Poptart." =)
>>
>> Thanks for pointing out my footnote. It's amazing how many people
>>jump to conclusions without reading a statement thoroughly. Moreover,
>>you're dead-on about the difference between form and content.
>>
>> Of course, it's not as if Mikko's ever read anything for comprehension,
>>either.
>
>I reiterate: The CONTENT of JLA is more realistic than the content of
>Archie...because the Archie titles ignore the baser aspects of teen
>culture?
>
>Rubbish.
Jane, you ignorant slut.
I wasn't talking about CONTENT. I was talking about STORYTELLING
STYLE.
ShutUpRob
In article <19971102175...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) writes:
>In article <icicle-0111...@jaresh-42.mdm.mke.execpc.com>,
>ici...@execpc.com (The Icicle) writes:
>
>> Pat, I started out on your concluding you don't know shit about stats.
>>I am beginning to wonder if you know shit about anything. I defy you to
>>show me evidence that the adult audience of comics was more than 50%
>>larger than it is right now. I defy you to defeat the thesis that that the
>>roughly 3-6 million fans we have lost since the 1960's is not mainly
>>children carried off by video games and distanced by the DM in
>>accessibility and cover price. You're supposedly a journalist in the
>>comics field Pat but I'll be damned if I can see any proof of it. I have
>>given you several oppurtunities to use your journalistic accumen to
>>provide us with some evidence of virtually anything and all you've done is
>>waste our time. And you wonder why no one takes you seriously?
>
>We HAVE lost the kids you talk about...and we've lost them, in part,
>because we've made comics too damned hard to follow. We've made
>comics into an obsessive purchase instead of a casual one.
Says the hypocrite using a WIZARD AOL account. YOU
contributed to the environment this industry is in by *cultivating*
that obsessiveness. YOU helped to make that bed. If we take
your opinion at face value, why should we believe YOU, when,
by working for WIZARD you automatically cultivated the very
enviroment you now rail against? Your judgment is completely
and totally in question at so many levels that your argument
that serialization is the problem is patently idiotic.
>How many CDs would teens buy if the ability to listen and understand
>any one of them required buying another dozen?
Bat Out of Hell II, anyone?
Use Your Illusion 1 and 2, anyone?
A slew of STYX albums, anyone? And Pat, STYX, one of the
better selling groups, much less one of the better selling concept-
album groups of the early-80's, used CONTINUITY. The albums
build incrementally around the setting of the Paradise Theater and
the denizens that came in and out of it.
>How many video
>games would pre-teens buy if you needed six of them to play a
>single game...instead of just one?
Why are the makers of MYST making the long-awaited sequel, RIVEN?
Because gamers wanted a continuation of the story, Pat.
To use another analogy: How many teens watch soap operas --
which require that you watch more (lots more) than one to get the full
effect . . .?
Millions, Pat, millions.
>We're not going to get comics back into their hands--no matter the
>price and no matter the availability--if we don't make the content
>as accessible as the content of the other things kids buy.
Pat, serialization, AS WE HAVE PROVEN, is far more widely
accepted than your tiny, arrogant little half of a mind is willing to
admit. Serialization and continuity ARE NOT THE PROBLEM.
We need to get the comics back on the newsstands, back into
the mainstream public's eyes. *THAT* is what will make comics
more accessible to the public at large -- a public that is, in fact,
open to the concepts of serialization and continuity *regardless
of age* from the moment they're able to follow any kind of a story.
The accessibility that they need is that which is determined by
the AVAILABILTY and ECONOMY of the comics *regardless of
content.*
Go away, Troll. You don't know what you're talking about.
KrytenToo
In article <idnsotf...@beta.hut.fi>, Mikko Aittola
<mait...@beta.hut.fi> writes:
>> Thanks for pointing out my footnote. It's amazing how many people
>> jump to conclusions without reading a statement thoroughly. Moreover,
>> you're dead-on about the difference between form and content.
>
> Bullshit. Superhero comics aren't anywhere near realistic.
> Archie comics are. Whether drugs are mentioned or not doesn't
> matter.
Gazoiks! I think Mikko has been infected with a strand of rogue Pat
DNA. Tell me Mikko, which is more realistic: Zip-Kid being strung
along by a sleazoid boyfriend while secretly wondering if Junior might
be a better choice for her, or Dilton creting an evil clone of himself
and Jughead eating it because it looks exactly like a burger? (So
what if that story hasn't been written. It SHOULD be, grok it!) See,
DC superhero comics deal with realistic people in unrealistic
situations. Archies involve unrealistic people in situations that might
be realistic if the Cosmic Reset Button wasn't hit after every adventure.
DC's have subplots that begin, develop, and resolve; Archies have
had the same subplot for six decades. DC characters develop,
while Archie is the exact same person that he started out as (save
for a few early stories where he was somewhat younger and
insisted on being called "Chick".). If Wally breaks his leg in one issue,
he'll be dealing with the fact next issue, while Reggie seems to
instanly recover from the many beating administered him by Moose.
Which is more realistic?
Jeremy B
"Once again, a knife-wielding maniac has shown us the way."
--Bart Simpson
dvel...@die.spambot.inconnect.com
On 02 Nov 1997 17:51:22 +0200, Mikko Aittola <mait...@beta.hut.fi>
wrote:
>
>Duggy <sci-...@jcu.edu.au> writes:
>> He said STORY TELLING STYLE. He did not mention the art.
>
>
> No matter how you look at it: Archie stuff is more realistic
> compared to superheroes.
Considering that Archie et al. are superheroes themselves
in the Archie books, I must disagree with you.
ShutUpRob
>
>In article <Pine.OSF.3.93.97110...@sailfish.jcu.edu.au>,
>Duggy <sci-...@jcu.edu.au> writes:
>
>>> Crap, Rob. The storytelling style of Archie is just as realistic--
>>> conceivably more so--as any superhero book. Cartooning is
>>> cartooning. Are you saying the same story drawn by, say,
>>> Ty Templeton is less realistic than one drawn by, say,
>>> Neal Adams?
>>
>>> Even if plot, dialogue, even page layout, are identical?
>>
>>He said STORY TELLING STYLE. He did not mention the art.
>
>That what does he mean by the story telling style? What is the
>difference in "story-telling" between Archie and JLA if it
>isn't the way the characters are portrayed visually?
Realism in characterization, plot, theme and several other
of Aristotle's unities. By virtue of the fact that Archie's characters
are static and therefore, do not evolve from story to story, they
automatically start out in a storytelling style that is far less
grounded in realism than the modern superhero genre. By
virtue of the fact that Archie stories do not build (with one or
two exceptions that prove the rule) upon each other, they
are automatically far less realistic in plot than modern superhero
comics. I can go on and on and on and not even *have* to go
into the differences between Dan Decarlo's excellent cartooning
and, say, Alex Ross's photorealism or Kevin McGuire's or Steve
Rude's more realistic expressiveness. Much less the WildStorm
and Top Cow stables' anatomical obsessiveness.
-- Rob Jensen -- believes that Pat is a moron based on not
only Pat's bullheadedly contradictory statements posted on USENET,
but assertions by his friends regarding his stubbornness. IOW,
Pat talks first and thinks later. Definition of a moron.
PatDOneill
In article <19971103010...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
shut...@aol.com (ShutUpRob) writes:
> I wasn't talking about CONTENT. I was talking about STORYTELLING
>STYLE.
Fine--explain what you mean by storytelling style. Others here have
said you don't mean the artwork. What do you mean?
PatDOneill
>The CONTENT of JLA is *far* more unrealistic than the content of
>Archie...But the PRESENTATION of JLA is far more realistic than the
>presentation of Archie. In JLA, we have a writer saying, "Okay, now
>how would real people react within this fantasy situation?" In Archie
>we have a writer saying, "Okay, now how would fantasy characters react
>within this real-life situation?" JLA and Archie are both fantasies.
>The difference between the two is which aspect of the book is
>fantastic.
More rubbish. The JLA characters are NOT more like real people
than the Archie characters. If anything, the reverse is true.
What makes the Archie characters fantasy and the JLA characters
real?
Make that argument to any one outside comics--Kids in high school
are less realistic than guys who can fly--and you'd be laughed at.
In fact, I'm laughing...and I'm inside comics.
PatDOneill
In article <63j0jf$o54$4...@netnews.upenn.edu>, melb...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu
(andrew (MELBOURNE)) writes:
>Here we have a definition problem. In comics, "storytelling" is a
>technical term that refers to translating full or partial script into
>panels on a page. In every other situation it simply means "how the story
>is told".
>
>Those arguing that Archie is less realistic than JLA are OBVIOUSLY
>talking about the latter definition, and Pat is either being pedantic to
>the point of making an ass out of himself or just plain stupid not to be
>able to see that.
No--I really don't see the difference in how the story is told. Both are
told in words and pictures. I'm told that the style of art is not what
is being compared...so I'm asking what is.
From discussions in other threads, it appears what is being discussed
is--mirabile dictu!--approach to continuity! Whodathunkit?
IOW, the continuity-obsessed on this newsgroup consider anything
with "continuity" more realistic than anything without it, no matter
what else is going on in the stories.
More rubbish.
PatDOneill
In article <19971103043...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
kryt...@aol.com (KrytenToo) writes:
>Tell me Mikko, which is more realistic: Zip-Kid being strung
>along by a sleazoid boyfriend while secretly wondering if Junior might
>be a better choice for her, or Dilton creting an evil clone of himself
>and Jughead eating it because it looks exactly like a burger?
Thsi argument might make sense if either of those stories represented
the most common plot type in their respective genres...but they
don't.
The most common plot type in superhero stories is "Big Good Guy
fights Big Bad Guy who wants to take over the city/country/world."
The most common plot type in Archie is "Archie does something
that gets him into trouble with Betty/Veronica/the principal/etc."
Now--which plot is more fantastic?
Mikko Aittola
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) writes:
> No--I really don't see the difference in how the story is told. Both are
> told in words and pictures. I'm told that the style of art is not what
> is being compared...so I'm asking what is.
I'd like to know that too.
> IOW, the continuity-obsessed on this newsgroup consider anything
> with "continuity" more realistic than anything without it, no matter
> what else is going on in the stories.
Yep.
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
dvel...@DIE.SPAMBOT.inconnect.com writes:
> Considering that Archie et al. are superheroes themselves
> in the Archie books, I must disagree with you.
So what you're saying is: Archie is a superhero book?
I still say Archie is more realistic compared to
(average) superhero books. But it's *certainly* WRONG
to say that superhero books are realistic and Archie
books are unrealistic.
/Mikko
Bradly E. Peterson
dst...@post.its.mcw.edu.DIESPAMMERS! (David W. Stepp) done said
this here deal:
>In article <19971102175...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) wrote:
>
>> We HAVE lost the kids you talk about...and we've lost them, in part,
>> because we've made comics too damned hard to follow. We've made
>> comics into an obsessive purchase instead of a casual one.
>>
>> How many CDs would teens buy if the ability to listen and understand
>> any one of them required buying another dozen? How many video
>> games would pre-teens buy if you needed six of them to play a
>> single game...instead of just one?
>>
>> We're not going to get comics back into their hands--no matter the
>> price and no matter the availability--if we don't make the content
>> as accessible as the content of the other things kids buy.
> Pat, do you have other skills that might be marketable? Your future is
>bleak in comics if you persist in thus line of reasoning. It is wrong to
>abuse continuity. It is wrong to have stories driven by continuity and if
>someone has a story idea that violates continuity and does at least the
>courtesy to the readers of running by a few objective peers to make sure
>it's worth it, stories can violate continuity and few here would object.
Pat has a good point, and not on the top of his head, either.
heh... It IS harder to just jump in and understand MOST of the
comics on the shelves these days. If the creative team has the
continuity / history SO wrapped into the storyline, that you
can't jump on at any given issue, you create an obvious problem.
Joe-schmoe walks in off the street, and picks up a title a friend
has told him rocks. He gets it home, reads it and finds that
there is very little that he understands about it. Joe decides
his friend has been snacking on the local mushrooms and does not
go back to the shop. Not good.
When I started reading comics, most if not all the stories were
one-shot reads, and if it was a continuing story, the writer
usually gave the reader all the info he / she needed to
understand and enjoy the story PLUS there was often a back-up
story that wasn't part of a multi-part storyline.
The serial side of the comics medium appears to have taken
precedence over accessibility. I think that in order for the
medium to grow... Well, we need to grow. heh... This means
change MUST come.
This means changing the way WE look at the medium. By way of
example, the second season of "Twin Peaks" suffered but not for
the reason most people think... Yes, the mystery of "who killed
Laura Palmer" had been solved, and some stopped watching. They
didn't understand that the mystery was not what the series was
really about. I was one of the ones who had heard about it and
caught a second series episode to see what the big deal was. I
didn't understand a damn bit of it. I couldn't make any sense of
it. This was due to the serial nature of the program.
That having been said, one of the reasons a show like "The
X-Files" has been able to gain viewers on a consistent basis, is
that the serial element has been played down, and they've
concentrated on each story, to make each episode a good starting
place. They HAVE been doing three part stories now and then, but
usually to bridge the gap between seasons. The logic in that is
obvious. New viewers watch the season premiere to see if it
lives up to it's hype, and get at least a quickie "last season"
update PLUS, they leave it hanging at the end of the episode in
hopes that they will come back to find out what happens. It's
much easier for this logic to work on something you don't have to
pay for before viewing / reading it. Comics aren't like that.
You have to pay before you play. Anyway...
I feel that creating a book that is a total package without
having to buy anything else in order to enjoy it is a major KEY
to getting new people to become readers. The serial element
doesn't necessarily need to end, as long as it takes a back seat
to accessibility.
The "One book = One story" method is a really GREAT way to keep
new readers. Now, if we can only get them to come in the shop in
the first place.
Bradly E. Peterson, Psychodrama Press
(Remove SPAMBLOCK from address to reply)
<http://www.fastlane.net/homepages/drama>
"I stared long and hard into the abyss...
... and saw myself staring back"
"Great spirits have always encountered
violent opposition from mediocre minds"
(Albert Einstein)
Bradly E. Peterson
rog...@airmail.net (Alleigh) done said this here deal:
>patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) wrote:
>>In article <icicle-0111...@jaresh-42.mdm.mke.execpc.com>,
>>ici...@execpc.com (The Icicle) writes:
>>> Pat, I started out on your concluding you don't know shit about stats.
>>>I am beginning to wonder if you know shit about anything. I defy you to
>>>show me evidence that the adult audience of comics was more than 50%
>>>larger than it is right now. I defy you to defeat the thesis that that the
>>>roughly 3-6 million fans we have lost since the 1960's is not mainly
>>>children carried off by video games and distanced by the DM in
>>>accessibility and cover price. You're supposedly a journalist in the
>>>comics field Pat but I'll be damned if I can see any proof of it. I have
>>>given you several oppurtunities to use your journalistic accumen to
>>>provide us with some evidence of virtually anything and all you've done is
>>>waste our time. And you wonder why no one takes you seriously?
>>We HAVE lost the kids you talk about...and we've lost them, in part,
>>because we've made comics too damned hard to follow. We've made
>>comics into an obsessive purchase instead of a casual one.
>>How many CDs would teens buy if the ability to listen and understand
>Your logic floors me. CD's are not the same kind of media. So if you
>write the books in a style easy to follow you lose the long-term
>readers.
It's not the media, it's the format. And it's not the STYLE that
is important, it's the format. It's not important to write in a
style that is easy to follow, it's writing one story at a time,
and making every issue possible a good starting point for new
readers.
Being accessible does not mean mean dumbing it down or losing
long-term readers. Being accessible means GAINING more long-term
readers.
Bradly E. Peterson
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) done said this here deal:
>I reiterate: The CONTENT of JLA is more realistic than the content of
>Archie...because the Archie titles ignore the baser aspects of teen
>culture?
>Rubbish.
I'm sorry Pat. You must give your answer in the form of a
question. heh... Are you asking us or telling us? Are you
saying you don't agree?
For my money, JLA isn't "realistic" at all, which is why it is
populated with spandex clad super people. Archie isn't
"realistic" because it's not an accurate depiction of what it's
like to be a teenager today. It's way too squeaky clean.
Neither of them are SUPPOSED to be realistic. They are both
basically offshoots of a fantasy. Neither could possibly exist
today. They are both, however enjoyable (to some) for what they
are... Fantasy stories, of a sort.
David W. Stepp
In article <19971103200...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) wrote:
> In article <63knlk$k...@news.cybernews.net>, SPAMBLO...@fastlane.net
> (Bradly E. Peterson) writes:
>
> >True. The sequels to succesful video games don't require that
> >you purchase the game that spawned it in order to enjoy it. It's
> >a good analogy. Multi-part storylines are the antithesis of the
> >way videogames work. They are each a unit unto itself, requiring
> >nothing else. One part of a multi-part storyline requires the
> >other parts in order for it to be fully enjoyed.
> >
> >It's the formula, not the format that Pat is trying to
> >illustrate.
>
> My god--I'm getting through to SOMEBODY!
No you're not. Bradley is repsonding to one of your tangents. You cut
the part where he shot down your main thesis. You never said that
multi-part stories were bad. We said that. You never really know anything
that I can tell unless one of us tells you. You said that all continuity
is bad. You said expecting writers to remember as much as the reader do is
bad. You said that keeping track of any but the barest of details was bad.
Pat, another reason you are a failure as a journalist is that you don't
appreciate that this is a written medium. It requires very little effort
for us to look at what you actually said and have no need to rely on your
appeals to our faulty memories. You thesis has been since the beginning
that expecting writers to remember the nuances of character history when
they are probably fans that wouldn't know any better is too much to ask.
Just because other have no knowledge, we should sacrifice ours too. This
philosophy explains a lot about your reasoning in general, now that I
think about it.
D.
--
Do you lack a feeling of contempt in your life? Do you feel positively toward your fellow netters? I can help! Visit
http://www.cyberpromo.com
..and learn the true meaning of revulsion!
Nathan Sanders
In article <idnwwip...@beta.hut.fi>,
Mikko Aittola <mait...@beta.hut.fi> wrote:
>> Realism in characterization, plot, theme and several other
>> of Aristotle's unities.
>
> Characterization:
>
> Gods, Demons, Aliens vs. Students.
That is not characterization --- those are histories and pieces of a
character's life. Characterization is how a character displays
emotion and thoughts, how s/he reacts to the world, how s/he learns
and grows from experience, etc.
> Yes, there are lot's of "normal" or "realistic" people in
> superhero comics, but there also are lots of "unrealistic"
> characters and characterization and exactly because
Character != characterization
> of that "unrealistic" stuff it is wrong to claim that
> "Archie comics are unrealistic and superhero comics are
> realistic."
The thesis is that Archie comics display less realistic characters
in more realistic situations than superhero comics do. Thus, Archie
characrters "behave" less realistically than the JLA.
> Plot:
>
> I thought this debate wasn't about plots...
Plot can drive characterization --- characters react to the plot
(usually), so it can be an impetus for characterization.
The specific details of the plot may be unrealistic (angels trying to
conquer Earth), but those details are valid if you allow that the
superhero universe has different laws of physics, allows magic, etc.
Just as you allow that in Archie, high school kids don't do drugs.
Ever.
THe difference between the two genres is that real people would
react the way the JLA reacts to their world, but real people would
not react the way Archie reacts to his world.
At least, I wouldn't. =)
> Theme:
>
> Superheroes/Supervillains vs. Students.
That's not theme; that's genre.
Theme is things like "man versus man", "man versus nature", "man
versus himself", etc. (yeah yeah, those are the old cliched themes
from high school --- they're still themes *grin*).
> What's the difference between Mort Weisinger style
> superhero continuity and Archie continuity?
Who was talking about Mort? I thought the discussion was about the
relative verisimilitude of the characterization of modern superheroes
(specifically, the JLA) and of Archie characters.
Nathan
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Sanders Department of Linguistics
san...@ling.ucsc.edu University of California
http://ling.ucsc.edu/~sanders Santa Cruz, California 95064
David W. Stepp
In article <19971103202...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
joha...@aol.com (JohannaLD) wrote:
> Is the issue here the development (whether characters change) or
> the level at which the characters leave off (high school vs. mid-
> adulthood)?
>
> Impulse seems to be doing fairly well for a younger hero. As is
> Robin. Or Superboy.
The issues is how characters develop over the course of the readers
attention span (5-10 years). I don't read any of the DC books you listed,
but I do remember the Teen Titans. Ultimately, they all developed a lot.
Dick graduated college and went solo, Donna got married, Roy got hooked on
dope, Garth lost Tula and Wally became the Flash. That is real, continuous
and sells comics to people like myself. Would it be better of they were
all stuck in permanent sidekick stage? If none of those stories had ever
been told? True, you could tell some stories that way, just like you tell
stories about Robin now. But unless DC comes up with some way to manage
their timelines, you;ll be stuck telling those stories.
> >>I defy you to show me evidence that the adult audience of comics
> was more than 50% larger than it is right now.<<
>
> Friend of mine told me about an old research paper in the San Joaquin
> County Library in Stockton,CA that was written in 1955 by Edward
> Feder at UC Berkeley' Bureau of Public Administration, regarding
> the laws that were passed during the Wertham witchhunts. Part of
> the paper went into the demographic research that was available
> about comic book readers. The findings include:
> 1) In the 8-14 yr old group, 96.5 % of the boys and 94.7 percent of
> the girls read comics.
> 2) In the 21-30 age group, 42.9 % of men and 51% of women were
> comic book readers.
> The study was done in the 40s after the war. Does this help?
Yes, but I would need to see the real paper. I find it hard to believe
that those numbers are accurate since after the war, comics took a nose
dive. Half the adults in the US then would have been on the order of 70
million people. Sales cannot account for that unless every issue was read
by 10 different people (Gerber numbers from memory). Also, I don't know
how much that reflects in that current debate since super-heroes
nose-dived right around then and thinks like Westerns, horror, true crime
and romance took off. I don't know much about those genre's myself but I
am sure Pat will pretend that he does until someone else comes along.
Finallt, Wertham symopathizers were not the most objectove batch and I
would have to see what this guys take was before I subscribe to his
findings. But yesm it does help.
BHMarks
***
From: patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill)
Date: Sat, Nov 1, 1997 5:06 PM EDT
Message-id: <19971101210...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
In article <dstepp-3110...@d558-1.phys.mcw.edu>,
dst...@post.its.mcw.edu.DIESPAMMERS! (David W. Stepp) writes:
> Here's a novel idea, Pat. Why don't you try to find evidence that this
>imaginary fan base will actually show yp before you ask us to make
>egregious sacrifices and the industry to basically buy your pig-in-a-poke?
>You can't? But you want to be taken seriously anyway? Discontinuous with
>reality, which is why current audiences don't buy in.
I can produce clear evidence that it isn't showing up now. Therefore,
something different needs to be done.
***
Reply from: Bennet Marks
Actually, I think most of us agree. But I've seen no evidence that introducing
more inconsistencies is really the change comics need at this time.
As ever,
Bennet
Jamie Coville
On 03 Nov 1997 15:28:35 +0200, Mikko Aittola <mait...@setri.hut.fi>
wrote:
Quite frankly, neither are realistic. Any of us remember high school?
I do, and it was nothing like the Archie books.
I think people are looking at the characters when they talk about
what's more "realist". Peter Parker, has a crabby boss, has problems
paying the rent on time, and had to deal with school bullies.
Basically he's a nerd. Over the years he's gone through many changes
and more emotions. Many of us can relate to Peter Parker. Or we can
look at it from the other end. Logan, gruff, angry, take no shit from
no one. While we never act like him (or I hope not), we can all feel
(or think) like him at times.
Archie? I can't relate to him at all. I suppose it's because he's to
simplistic and "mom and apple pie" for me. While I'll agree that he
goes through some basic emotions that we all have. Like being mad at
Reggie for being a jerk, trying to get dates with either Veronic or
Betty, his personality is to .. generic I guess. He touches base with
the emotions that we feel, but he doesn't have a personality that we
can relate too.
dvel...@die.spambot.inconnect.com
>
>dvel...@DIE.SPAMBOT.inconnect.com writes:
>> Considering that Archie et al. are superheroes themselves
>> in the Archie books, I must disagree with you.
>
>
> So what you're saying is: Archie is a superhero book?
I'm saying that Archie is a superhero -- as are
Jughead, Betty and Veronica. They're also
secret agents. They've been written as such
in many issues of Archie Comics.
What's more, Jughead is a time traveller.
Don't believe me? I suggest you peruse the
Archie Comics of the past 20 years. They
have frequently been portrayed in this manner
-- and this portrayal has frequently been ignored.
Mind you, I'm not complaining. I recognize that
Archie Comics belong to a different genre and
are written for a different audience. I merely point
out that Archie et al. are by no means "realistic."
Dan McEwen
On Mon, 03 Nov 1997 14:43:58 GMT, SPAMBLO...@fastlane.net (Bradly
E. Peterson) wrote:
>>patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) wrote:
>
>>How many CDs would teens buy if the ability to listen and understand
>>any one of them required buying another dozen? How many video
>>games would pre-teens buy if you needed six of them to play a
>>single game...instead of just one?
>
>True. The sequels to succesful video games don't require that
>you purchase the game that spawned it in order to enjoy it. It's
>a good analogy. Multi-part storylines are the antithesis of the
>way videogames work. They are each a unit unto itself, requiring
>nothing else. One part of a multi-part storyline requires the
>other parts in order for it to be fully enjoyed.
>
>It's the formula, not the format that Pat is trying to
>illustrate.
>
So then we're not trying to get people to continue to buy? Comic
companies just want single-issue buyers who give no thought to
continuing reading the book? What makes something easier to pick up
also makes it easier to drop. OTOH, when you get *involved* with
characters, the situations they are in, how it effects them, etc.,
_then_ you choose to keep reading. I certainly don't read a comic if
I don't like the characters. And I don't like 2-dimensional
characters, which is exactly what we'd have without continuity.
Dan
djmc...@worldnet.att.net
fe...@lsh.org
http://home.att.net/~djmcewen/personal.html
KrytenToo
In article <19971103124...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) writes:
>>Tell me Mikko, which is more realistic: Zip-Kid being strung
>>along by a sleazoid boyfriend while secretly wondering if Junior might
>>be a better choice for her, or Dilton creting an evil clone of himself
>>and Jughead eating it because it looks exactly like a burger?
>
>Thsi argument might make sense if either of those stories represented
>the most common plot type in their respective genres...but they
>don't.
>
>The most common plot type in superhero stories is "Big Good Guy
>fights Big Bad Guy who wants to take over the city/country/world."
>The most common plot type in Archie is "Archie does something
>that gets him into trouble with Betty/Veronica/the principal/etc."
>
>Now--which plot is more fantastic?
Oh, what a surprise. You ignored all the rest of my arguments so
that you could make your point. Now that you have, you can address
my other points. Namely, in Archie comics, characters do not have
any developement, nor do actions have repercussions. In the DCU,
and in real life, people/characters do change, and actions do have
consequences. Thus, DC comics are closer to reality in storytelling
style, character development, and character interaction than Archie
comics.
Eric Sturgeon
In article <19971103124...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
PatDOneill <patdo...@aol.com> wrote:
>More rubbish. The JLA characters are NOT more like real people
>than the Archie characters. If anything, the reverse is true.
>
>What makes the Archie characters fantasy and the JLA characters
>real?
>
>Make that argument to any one outside comics--Kids in high school
>are less realistic than guys who can fly--and you'd be laughed at.
>
>In fact, I'm laughing...and I'm inside comics.
I will say one last thing to you, Pat, before I give up and stop
trying to reason with you, since it obviously can't be done, being
that single-cell organisms such as yourself have no brain and
therefore cannot reason:
Grow the fuck *up*! You are a pathetic excuse for a human being, much
less a writer, and the fact that you supposedly have children, if
true, is a crime, although I'm sure we can dismiss it as one of your
little fantasy trips. What, did your parents drop you on the head
often when you were a child, or did you do too many drugs when you
were younger, or what?
You are a child, Mr. O'Neill, a petulant child who refuses to admit
when he is wrong, who refuses to be educated, who refuses to listen,
who instead stands in a corner, face to the wall, hands over his ears,
chanting "La la la I can't hear you" at the top of his lungs as though
that makes him correct in some way.
You are a pedantic slimeball with entirely too high an opinion of
himself, although your opinion of yourself would still be too high
even if you considered yourself to be lower than pond scum.
Your presence on the face of this planet lowers the average IQ of the
human race, if indeed you can be said to be a member of the human
race, by, I would estimate, some 50 to 100 points.
You are, to put it plainly, a stupid motherfucking waste of perfectly
good shit. Your existence offends.
Best,
Stirge
Dan McEwen
On 3 Nov 1997 12:42:51 GMT, patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) wrote:
>In article <63j0jf$o54$4...@netnews.upenn.edu>, melb...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu
>(andrew (MELBOURNE)) writes:
>
>>Here we have a definition problem. In comics, "storytelling" is a
>>technical term that refers to translating full or partial script into
>>panels on a page. In every other situation it simply means "how the story
>>is told".
>>
>>Those arguing that Archie is less realistic than JLA are OBVIOUSLY
>>talking about the latter definition, and Pat is either being pedantic to
>>the point of making an ass out of himself or just plain stupid not to be
>>able to see that.
>
>No--I really don't see the difference in how the story is told. Both are
>told in words and pictures. I'm told that the style of art is not what
>is being compared...so I'm asking what is.
>
>From discussions in other threads, it appears what is being discussed
>is--mirabile dictu!--approach to continuity! Whodathunkit?
>
>IOW, the continuity-obsessed on this newsgroup consider anything
>with "continuity" more realistic than anything without it, no matter
>what else is going on in the stories.
Funny thing. The real world has "continuity". So does that make
Archie comics (lacking continuity) just as realistic as the real
world? Nope. Continuity provides that which exists in the real
world. Static stories where nothing ever changes are not any sort of
reflection of the real world.
Super-hero comics ask this of us: What if super-heroes existed? So
take that premise. Now, imagine they did exist in the real world.
Would that make the real world less realistic? No, it wouldn't.
However, with super-heroes in existence, we'd still look at Archie and
say how unrealistic it is.
Now, if, in the real world, there was no cause and effect, Archie
comics would certainly look a lot more realistic...if anyone could
ever remember from one day to the next they had ever read them.
PatDOneill
In article <19971104024...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
bhm...@aol.com (BHMarks) writes:
>Actually, I think most of us agree. But I've seen no evidence that
>introducing
> more inconsistencies is really the change comics need at this time.
Not deliberately introducing more inconsistencies...just not letting
inconsistencies prevent us from telling a story that might appeal
to a wider audience.
JohannaLD
From: dst...@post.its.mcw.edu.DIESPAMMERS! (David W. Stepp)
>The issues is how characters develop over the course of the readers
>attention span (5-10 years). I don't read any of the DC books you listed,
>but I do remember the Teen Titans.
So do I. Their development is responsible for most of the continuity
problems people point to today, I think. Especially the hated ten-year
timelines being too compressed.
>Would it be better of they were
>all stuck in permanent sidekick stage?
Better? Different, anyway. The problem comes when these characters
drag linchpins along with them (like Batman & Wonder Woman). Unless
the characters you're using are off in their own world, with little to
no interaction with the DCU, it's an all-or-nothing decision, but I don't
think it was made that way. Or necessarily realized at the time.
> I would need to see the real paper.
I gave you the citation I had.
>I don't know
>how much that reflects in that current debate since super-heroes
>nose-dived right around then and thinks like Westerns, horror, true crime
>and romance took off.
Oh, I'd agree that super-heroes aren't what appeals to most adults,
but I was saying that before.
Johanna
PatDOneill
In article <dstepp-0311...@d558-1.phys.mcw.edu>,
dst...@post.its.mcw.edu.DIESPAMMERS! (David W. Stepp) writes:
>> My god--I'm getting through to SOMEBODY!
>
> No you're not. Bradley is repsonding to one of your tangents. You cut
>the part where he shot down your main thesis. You never said that
>multi-part stories were bad. We said that. You never really know anything
>that I can tell unless one of us tells you. You said that all continuity
>is bad. You said expecting writers to remember as much as the reader do is
>bad. You said that keeping track of any but the barest of details was bad.
I quoted Bradley's entire post, Stepp.
PatDOneill
In article <63lk59$abf$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>, melb...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu
(andrew (MELBOURNE)) writes:
>Pat, you made this argument with "Wally should be dead if he didn't
>breathe for 40 minutes", so I KNOW you agree with this point.
>
>Superhero comics *try* to rationalize these things, at least. (Wally was
>in some kind of funky super-state.) In ARCHIE comics, NO explanation
>would be given.
In Archie, the situation would never come up.
Dan McEwen
>Pat has a good point, and not on the top of his head, either.
>heh... It IS harder to just jump in and understand MOST of the
>comics on the shelves these days. If the creative team has the
>continuity / history SO wrapped into the storyline, that you
>can't jump on at any given issue, you create an obvious problem.
>Joe-schmoe walks in off the street, and picks up a title a friend
>has told him rocks. He gets it home, reads it and finds that
>there is very little that he understands about it. Joe decides
>his friend has been snacking on the local mushrooms and does not
>go back to the shop. Not good.
True, but point out to me *one* post where someone has asked for the
reader to know 50 years worth of continuity to understand a book. I
don't think you'll find one. Choosing not to ignore established
continuity does not equate with filling the book with obscure
references that no one remembers.
>When I started reading comics, most if not all the stories were
>one-shot reads, and if it was a continuing story, the writer
>usually gave the reader all the info he / she needed to
>understand and enjoy the story PLUS there was often a back-up
>story that wasn't part of a multi-part storyline.
Then you look at me. I got into comic books reading the Great
Darkness Saga in LSH. This was a story that made reference to a lot
of characters and situations I had never heard of (from Darkseid to
Mordru to the New Gods to the identities of the Legionnaires). Guess
what? LSH fast became my *favorite* title. Does this make me a
genius, then, because I could read and understand the book? I hardly
think so. I was just good writing. And, over time, everything was
explained to me. It was worth the payoff.
JohannaLD
From Dan McEwen
I think we're trying to get people not to feel forced to buy. Because when
that happens, without alternatives to convoluted storylines and cross-
linked books, it's too easy for frustrated readers to drop comics all
together instead of trying something else.
Johanna
Bradly E. Peterson
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) done said this here deal:
>More rubbish. The JLA characters are NOT more like real people
>than the Archie characters. If anything, the reverse is true.
>What makes the Archie characters fantasy and the JLA characters
>real?
Well, I don't think the JLA characters are more real than Archie
or vice versa. They are BOTH equally unbelievable. heh...
Archie, Jughead and their pals would be getting their asses
kicked on a regular basis in a school today. Those characters
are a throwback to a more innocent era. They are nostalgic
fantasy.
>Make that argument to any one outside comics--Kids in high school
>are less realistic than guys who can fly--and you'd be laughed at.
>In fact, I'm laughing...and I'm inside comics.
Yeah, I thought that was you getting pummelled in last month's
issue of "Beat me, Bite me, Tie Me To The Bed". heh...
PatDOneill
In article <63mf8v$j...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, fe...@lsh.org (Dan
McEwen ) writes:
>So then we're not trying to get people to continue to buy? Comic
>companies just want single-issue buyers who give no thought to
>continuing reading the book? What makes something easier to pick up
>also makes it easier to drop. OTOH, when you get *involved* with
>characters, the situations they are in, how it effects them, etc.,
>_then_ you choose to keep reading. I certainly don't read a comic if
>I don't like the characters. And I don't like 2-dimensional
>characters, which is exactly what we'd have without continuity.
>
Until we have a solid subscription base in comics--which has never
existed and is unlikely to exist--we rely on "off the rack" sales
to survive. For decades, comics did better selling on an impulse
basis to the casual buyer than they do now selling to the dedicated
collector/reader.
For one thing, the dedicated collector/reader will still be there. These
are people who love the medium of comics. For another, if we build
the casual buyer base, we may find more people who will love
the medium when they have the opportunity to sample it.
PatDOneill
In article <19971104044...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
kryt...@aol.com (KrytenToo) writes:
> Namely, in Archie comics, characters do not have
>any developement, nor do actions have repercussions. In the DCU,
>and in real life, people/characters do change, and actions do have
>consequences. Thus, DC comics are closer to reality in storytelling
>style, character development, and character interaction than Archie
>comics.
Yep--like I said elsewhere, what the continuity junkies think makes
JLA more realistic than Archie is (well, whadayano) continuity.
JohannaLD
From: kryt...@aol.com (KrytenToo)
>in Archie comics, characters do not have
>any developement, nor do actions have repercussions.
Not completely true -- they do have repercussions WITHIN the given
story. They just don't have long-term repercussions.
I think superhero stories work the same way, actually. Take that
Aquaman annual story where he meets Wonder Woman as a teenager.
Now, that meeting had repercussions within the story, but we haven't
seen reference to it in, for example, their interactions within the JLA.
Come to think of it, we haven't seen effects from Diana's leadership
of the JL in the current run, either.
Johanna
Peter Meilinger
BHMarks <bhm...@aol.com> wrote:
> Your example of X-FILES is a useful one here. Although many of their shows are
> not "continued next episode", never-the-less the creators are maintaining a
> highly consistent world in terms of the characters' backgrounds, their
> families, previous experiences, etc. They are deliberately very careful about
> this.
The X-Files really isn't a good example of a "highly consistent"
world. Trust me. For several seasons, every time something weird happened,
Scully would claim paranormal things just don't exist - never mind the
fact that she saw PROOF of the paranormal on last week's episode. Then
there's the fact that Mulder has always been portrayed as being fanatical
about finding his sister, yet last season's opener (I think) had him find
a farm where a couple dozen clones of his sister were working the fields.
There's been absolutely NO follow-up to that, and Mulder doesn't seem
interested in figuring it out. Feh.
To top it all off, this season's opener "proves" that there's no such
thing as aliens, but there's so much evidence against that idea that
I don't even feel like listing it. A lot of it could be the government,
yes, but a lot of it couldn't be.
I'd say don't get me started on inconsistencies in the X-Files, but I
guess you already did. Sorry.
Pete
PatDOneill
In article <63n8ae$c...@news.cybernews.net>, SPAMBLO...@fastlane.net
(Bradly E. Peterson) writes:
>Well, I don't think the JLA characters are more real than Archie
>or vice versa. They are BOTH equally unbelievable. heh...
>Archie, Jughead and their pals would be getting their asses
>kicked on a regular basis in a school today. Those characters
>are a throwback to a more innocent era. They are nostalgic
>fantasy.
Brad--are tough urban high schools the only examples you know?
Because I live now in a middle-class suburban town, just blocks
from the local high school...and the kids I see and hear and
the neighbors' kids I know are more like Archie and the gang
than anything you've implied here.
Duggy
In article <63j0jf$o54$4...@netnews.upenn.edu>,
melb...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (andrew (MELBOURNE)) wrote:
> PatDOneill (patdo...@aol.com) wrote:
> : That what does he mean by the story telling style? What is the
> : difference in "story-telling" between Archie and JLA if it
> : isn't the way the characters are portrayed visually?
> Here we have a definition problem. In comics, "storytelling" is a
> technical term that refers to translating full or partial script into
> panels on a page. In every other situation it simply means "how the story
> is told".
Since Pat is always going on about how we should respect his industry
knowledge, and how we should respect him for it, he should have pointed
this out.
> Those arguing that Archie is less realistic than JLA are OBVIOUSLY
> talking about the latter definition,
And as RACDcU is a fan forum, a perfectly legitimate definition to use.
>and Pat is either being pedantic to
> the point of making an ass out of himself or just plain stupid not to be
> able to see that.
Gee, that'd be so out of character for Pat.
---
- Dug.
---
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Dan McEwen
On 4 Nov 1997 12:49:00 GMT, patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) wrote:
>
>Until we have a solid subscription base in comics--which has never
>existed and is unlikely to exist--we rely on "off the rack" sales
>to survive. For decades, comics did better selling on an impulse
>basis to the casual buyer than they do now selling to the dedicated
>collector/reader.
Personally, I =would= subscribe to comic books if I thought I could
get them in a timely manner (the day they arrive everywhere else). I
remember subscribing to v3 LSH. I got two issues out of order. I
never subscribed again.
Also, I disagree with the "off the rack". Direct Market has the
majority of comic sales. Most often, when you go into a comic shop,
you do so to *buy*.
>For one thing, the dedicated collector/reader will still be there. These
>are people who love the medium of comics. For another, if we build
>the casual buyer base, we may find more people who will love
>the medium when they have the opportunity to sample it.
>
>
OK, that's true. So the "off the rack" is needed. In fact, there are
comics I give a shot based on flipping through the issue. If I lose
that, through subscription-only based sales, there are fewer books
I'll risk reading.
Dan McEwen
On 4 Nov 1997 13:02:16 GMT, joha...@aol.com (JohannaLD) wrote:
>From Dan McEwen
>>>we're not trying to get people to continue to buy?
>
>I think we're trying to get people not to feel forced to buy. Because when
>that happens, without alternatives to convoluted storylines and cross-
>linked books, it's too easy for frustrated readers to drop comics all
>together instead of trying something else.
Which is exactly why I hate crossovers (stories that force a reader to
buy a book outside of his/her normal reading in order to understand
the story). This is not synonomous with continuity.
Bradly E. Peterson
dst...@post.its.mcw.edu.DIESPAMMERS! (David W. Stepp) done said
this here deal:
>In article <19971103200...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) wrote:
>> In article <63knlk$k...@news.cybernews.net>, SPAMBLO...@fastlane.net
>> (Bradly E. Peterson) writes:
>> >It's the formula, not the format that Pat is trying to
>> >illustrate.
>>
>> My god--I'm getting through to SOMEBODY!
> No you're not. Bradley is repsonding to one of your tangents.
No, I'm not. heh...
Bradly E. Peterson
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) done said this here deal:
>In article <63knlk$k...@news.cybernews.net>, SPAMBLO...@fastlane.net
>(Bradly E. Peterson) writes:
>>It's the formula, not the format that Pat is trying to
>>illustrate.
>My god--I'm getting through to SOMEBODY!
My god! I'm SOMEBODY! heh...
Bradly E. Peterson
bhm...@aol.com (BHMarks) done said this here deal:
>Bradley -
>Your example of X-FILES is a useful one here. Although many of their shows are
> not "continued next episode", never-the-less the creators are maintaining a
> highly consistent world in terms of the characters' backgrounds, their
> families, previous experiences, etc. They are deliberately very careful about
> this.
Yep. It's the backstory I've been talking about. It's in the
back, and not in the front.
>And even those episodes that are not "continued" in the usual sense contain
> hints, subtexts, references, etc., that (a) are a joy to regular viewers, and
> (b) may appear mysterious to new viewers, but not so much so that they can't
> enjoy the show. In fact, in many cases they are precisely those details that
> turn new viewers into regulars.
>I'd like the DC Universe to be like that, too.
You've nailed it. Thats exactly what I've been saying.
Bradly E. Peterson
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) done said this here deal:
>In article <dstepp-0311...@d558-1.phys.mcw.edu>,
>dst...@post.its.mcw.edu.DIESPAMMERS! (David W. Stepp) writes:
>>> My god--I'm getting through to SOMEBODY!
>>
>> No you're not. Bradley is repsonding to one of your tangents. You cut
>>the part where he shot down your main thesis. You never said that
>>multi-part stories were bad. We said that. You never really know anything
>>that I can tell unless one of us tells you. You said that all continuity
>>is bad. You said expecting writers to remember as much as the reader do is
>>bad. You said that keeping track of any but the barest of details was bad.
>I quoted Bradley's entire post, Stepp.
True. Stepp is talking about another post.
Bradly E. Peterson
bria...@aol.com (Brian McDn) done said this here deal:
>"One book=One story" is a good way to keep people with very short
>attention spans, but it's hardly the panacea you think it is. There's
>ample evidence to show that continuity is not something people are afraid
>of. Spending $3 for something they'll have finished in 10 minutes, that
>could be a deterrent. Lack of availability, that could be a deterrent.
>(The one subject I actually agree with Pat on is the crippling limitation
>of the direct market.) The perception that comics are for children, that
>could be a deterrent. Even KIDS nowadays don't seem to want things that
>are perceived to be for children. I think that singling out continuity as
>the cause of the industry's troubles is a gross and misguided
>oversimplification.
You're oversimplifying, not me. I never said that continuity was
the cause of the industry's troubles. I said that making comics
more story-based rather than serial-based is GOOD. Let the
unresolved stuff slide into the background where it belongs and
have them deal with that stuff when it need to be dealt with, and
bring the STORY to the forefront. Individual stories that bring
the reader back. They'll eventually catch on to the back story,
and may even get the back issues in order to learn more, but
having an individual story for each issue WORKS!
Look at Alan Moore's current run on "Supreme", a title that had
all the same problems I listed before, before he came onboard.
Alan is writing individual stories for EACH issue, but keeps the
back story where it belongs... In the background. Any of those
issues is a good jumping on point for a new reader.
Bradly E. Peterson
bria...@aol.com (Brian McDn) done said this here deal:
>SPAMBLO...@fastlane.net (Bradly E. Peterson) writes:
>> It's much easier for this logic to work on something you don't have to
>>pay for before viewing / reading it. Comics aren't like that.
>>You have to pay before you play. Anyway...
>So by that logic, you want to have FEWER continuing stories in television,
>because continuing stories are BAD, and you don't want to scare away new
>viewers, who could just as easily switch to the Bass Fishing channel.
No. I want comics to play down the serial element and
concentrate on each story to make it easier to jump in.
I didn't say that continuing stories were bad.
Bradly E. Peterson
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) done said this here deal:
>Until we have a solid subscription base in comics--which has never
>existed and is unlikely to exist--we rely on "off the rack" sales
>to survive. For decades, comics did better selling on an impulse
>basis to the casual buyer than they do now selling to the dedicated
>collector/reader.
So, that being said, how DO we get a solid subscription base
established for the comics medium? How is it that the rest of
the periodicals have this and we don't?
>For one thing, the dedicated collector/reader will still be there. These
>are people who love the medium of comics. For another, if we build
>the casual buyer base, we may find more people who will love
>the medium when they have the opportunity to sample it.
Good. HOW do we build the casual buyer base?
Getting new readers into the store is probably more difficult
than getting the stuff into the places where the potential casual
readers are. How do we get the stuff to where they are?
DERVISH M
Pat D ONeill said
>>Until we have a solid subscription base in comics--which has never
>>existed and is unlikely to exist--we rely on "off the rack" sales
>>to survive. For decades, comics did better selling on an impulse
>>basis to the casual buyer than they do now selling to the dedicated
>>collector/reader.
and then Bradley Peterson said
>So, that being said, how DO we get a solid subscription base
>established for the comics medium? How is it that the rest of
>the periodicals have this and we don't?
>
Comics are a different animal than other periodicals when it comes to
subscriptions. Most magazines sell ad space based on their subscription base.
The larger the subscription the more they can charge for an ad. Unlike comics
the basis for most of thier revenue is not sales of the actual magazine but
sales of the advertisement space within the magazine. So it behooves magazines
to sell subscriptions at a lower price through mail, to use sweepstakes and to
telemarket their magazine at a lower price also.
Traditionally (this time I am speaking from my own observations and
remembrances) subscriptions were more of a hassle to the comic companies than
a boost for sales.
M J Moran
PatDOneill
In article <63p08s$f...@news.cybernews.net>, SPAMBLO...@fastlane.net
(Bradly E. Peterson) writes:
>Getting new readers into the store is probably more difficult
>than getting the stuff into the places where the potential casual
>readers are. How do we get the stuff to where they are?
We start by having a package--both in form and content--that
is saleable in the "civilian" market.
Lower prices won't do it--they make the package unworthy of
the civilian retailer's time and effort. But if you make the
price too high, then the prospective civilian buyer balks
at paying several dollars for a "comic book" that he remembers
not costing more than a quarter. (Size doesn't matter here;
the perception is "comics cost a quarter or less".)
What form should be used? I don't know--every package
I've seen suggested in the past few years has been pooh-
poohed by somebody along the way.
(One other note: The package has to be acceptable by
current retailers as well, since the publishers are not going
to want to lose their 80% base.)
As to content--it has to be standalone (or virtually so). You
can't get a large number of people to sample something
if they feel they aren't getting a complete package with
their purchase.
Lyle Masaki
In article <63knl7$k...@news.cybernews.net>, SPAMBLO...@fastlane.net wrote:
>This means changing the way WE look at the medium. By way of
>example, the second season of "Twin Peaks" suffered but not for
>the reason most people think... Yes, the mystery of "who killed
>Laura Palmer" had been solved, and some stopped watching. They
>didn't understand that the mystery was not what the series was
>really about. I was one of the ones who had heard about it and
>caught a second series episode to see what the big deal was. I
>didn't understand a damn bit of it. I couldn't make any sense of
>it. This was due to the serial nature of the program.
>
I have to disagree with you on that one. The serial nature of "Twin Peaks"
shouldn't have stopped you from understanding and enjoying the program less
than any others. What caused a problem was how TPTB juggled managed the
large cast and storylines on that show.
A decade ago, most TV serials knew how effectively juggle a large cast
playing out several storylines in a way that both old and new viewers would
enjoy that. That is how the daytime soaps have survived for so many
decades. Some soap scribes have done a better job than others. During his
tenure writing As the World Turns, Douglas Marland managed to juggle a cast
of 40+ characters in a way that was very easy for a new viewer to jump
onto. I saw a lot of people pick up the show during that time with only a
few questions about what's going on (all questions they were willing to
watch more to learn the answers to).
Most of Paul Levitz's run on LSH, IMO, worked similarly, especially his v2
stories. He managed to juggle the large Legion cast (and supporting cast)
in a way that the new reader wasn't confused but also managed to keep the
long-term readers hooked with character development and discoveries. (Like
Marland at ATWT, he also managed to give every character a good amount of
"screen time".) The new reader was exposed to the cast as much as necesary
in the story and no more. If there was more to be learned about a
character, it could wait until the apropriate story.
If continuity is causing a problem bringing in new comics readers, it's
because TPTB have forgotten how to write complex plots that can be
understood by the newcomer, yet hook that newbie to come back. That's half
the reason why the soaps' audience is now so small (the other half being
mismanagement of the shows' continuity, which quickly alienates a loyal
audience) as well.
Lyle
Legion quote for Wednesday 5 November 1997:
"What kind of name is ‘Braniac 5’ anyway? Don’t you know who Braniac was?"
Lyle Norg
"I guess Darkseid 2 was taken."
Luornu Durgo
from Legionaires #21, scripted by Tom Peyer
LSH #100 arrives in 21 days!
ShutUpRob
In article <19971104124...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) writes:
>In article <63lk59$abf$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>, melb...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu
>(andrew (MELBOURNE)) writes:
>
>>Pat, you made this argument with "Wally should be dead if he didn't
>>breathe for 40 minutes", so I KNOW you agree with this point.
>>
>>Superhero comics *try* to rationalize these things, at least. (Wally was
>>in some kind of funky super-state.) In ARCHIE comics, NO explanation
>>would be given.
>
>In Archie, the situation would never come up.
>
>
Right. Yeah. That's why they publish stories about Pureheart
the Powerful and friends.
-- Rob Jensen
=========================================
"Enlightenment can only be achieved through studious
contemplation of male pattern baldness."
-- from the 'Tao Te Kojak'
ShutUpRob
In article <19971104124...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) writes:
>
>In article <19971104024...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>bhm...@aol.com (BHMarks) writes:
>
>>Actually, I think most of us agree. But I've seen no evidence that
>>introducing
>> more inconsistencies is really the change comics need at this time.
>
>Not deliberately introducing more inconsistencies...just not letting
>inconsistencies prevent us from telling a story that might appeal
>to a wider audience.
>
>
Pat, that's deliberately introducing more inconsistencies. The
allowance of inconsistencies is tacit approval of inconsistencies
because allowance requires awareness -- and therefore, deliberate
dismissal -- of the situation posed.
PatDOneill
In article <63ot9q$n...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, fe...@lsh.org (Dan
McEwen ) writes:
>>> : In Archie, the situation would never come up.
>>
>>Gee, I guess every time Dilton creates some incredible new thing, or when
>>the gang becomes the Superteens that it doesn't count then.
>>
>Don't expect a response to this one, Aaron. Everytime a valid and
>obvious point is made, Pat ignores it.
Fine. It comes up in the occasional unusual story. The run-of-the-mill
Archie story does not involve science fiction, super heroes or threatened
death.
The superteen stories are a parody--a joke. They don't exist in the
"normal" Archie world.
You see, there's the difference between Archie and the superhero
stuff: The Archie characters exist as a vehicle for telling stories; in that,
they are much like the Warner Bros. animated characters of the 1940s
and '50s--consistency and continuity of story detail are unimportant
(e.g., that Archie was dating Betty after breaking up with Veronica last
month does not preclude a story about dating Veronica this month).
What's important is consistency of character--if Archie drops his jaw
at the sight of Veronica in a skimpy bikini this month, he should do
it next month as well.
Y'know what? It works--the Archie stuff is far more popular and more
memorable to the "civilian" population than most superhero stuff.
How many times have you heard a woman described as a "Veronica"
type, or a "Betty"? Ever heard anyone use "Lois Lane" or "Lana
Lang" in the same context?
It's that lack of continuity--what you folks think of as "realism"--that
makes the Archie stuff work to the real world.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Dan McEwen (fe...@lsh.org) wrote:
: On 4 Nov 1997 13:02:16 GMT, joha...@aol.com (JohannaLD) wrote:
: >From Dan McEwen
: >>>we're not trying to get people to continue to buy?
: >
: >I think we're trying to get people not to feel forced to buy. Because when
: >that happens, without alternatives to convoluted storylines and cross-
: >linked books, it's too easy for frustrated readers to drop comics all
: >together instead of trying something else.
: Which is exactly why I hate crossovers (stories that force a reader to
: buy a book outside of his/her normal reading in order to understand
: the story).
Yep, like the current plotline in LSH being continued in ACTION COMICS,
which *does* leave readers feeling "forced to buy."
- 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
Aaron S. Veenstra
In article <63qmoh$n...@nntp02.primenet.com>, schl...@primenet.com (Mark
Schlesinger) wrote:
> I often notice dead people coming back to life in reality,
> just like the DCU.
How many times does it have to be said that the argument isn't over
realistic situations or realism of content? If you want to argue and be
taken seriously, you need to be able to stay on the topic. Otherwise you
wind up looking like Pat.
Aaron
--
Looking for high quality mind control software for your Mac?
Check out OpenMind 1.0! A demo is available from Etc. House
Productions at http://www.portup.com/~etchouse/openmind/.
Greg Schienke
fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>Dan McEwen (fe...@lsh.org) wrote:
>: On 4 Nov 1997 13:02:16 GMT, joha...@aol.com (JohannaLD) wrote:
>
>: >From Dan McEwen
>: >>>we're not trying to get people to continue to buy?
>: >
>: >I think we're trying to get people not to feel forced to buy. Because when
>: >that happens, without alternatives to convoluted storylines and cross-
>: >linked books, it's too easy for frustrated readers to drop comics all
>: >together instead of trying something else.
>
>: Which is exactly why I hate crossovers (stories that force a reader to
>: buy a book outside of his/her normal reading in order to understand
>: the story).
>
>Yep, like the current plotline in LSH being continued in ACTION COMICS,
>which *does* leave readers feeling "forced to buy."
I used to think that a person needed to buy the comic that a story
continues in, as in the Legion story continuing into Action and in the
old days, pre-eighties, you did. If a story in continued over into a
another title, a reader of the first would not know how the story
ended.
However, today, with comic companies more continuity aware, you can be
sure of some mention of what happened in Comic B will occur in Comic
A, if only in a thought balloon. You may not get the whole story, but
you know what happened without having to spend the couple of dollars
for Comic B.
Heck, since I've been unemployed,I've found that I can follow what's
happening in the comics I can no longer afford to buy by just reading
Previews. I was doing that with the Superman titles for years,
anyway.
Greg
Brian McDn
>
>>"One book=One story" is a good way to keep people with very short
>>attention spans, but it's hardly the panacea you think it is. There's
>>ample evidence to show that continuity is not something people are afraid
>>of. Spending $3 for something they'll have finished in 10 minutes, that
>>could be a deterrent. Lack of availability, that could be a deterrent.
>>(The one subject I actually agree with Pat on is the crippling limitation
>>of the direct market.) The perception that comics are for children, that
>>could be a deterrent. Even KIDS nowadays don't seem to want things that
>>are perceived to be for children. I think that singling out continuity as
>>the cause of the industry's troubles is a gross and misguided
>>oversimplification.
>
>You're oversimplifying, not me. I never said that continuity was
>the cause of the industry's troubles. I said that making comics
>more story-based rather than serial-based is GOOD.
I think most mainstream comics right now ARE story-based. It's just that
the stories are longer than they used to be. And yet, the highest selling
titles right now are mostly serial in nature. What to make of that, I'm
not sure.
> Let the unresolved stuff slide into the background where it belongs and
>have them deal with that stuff when it need to be dealt with, and
>bring the STORY to the forefront. Individual stories that bring
>the reader back. They'll eventually catch on to the back story,
>and may even get the back issues in order to learn more, but
>having an individual story for each issue WORKS!
See, I don't see this horrible overdependance on the serial nature of
comics. I do see the format of comics, including the serial nature, as a
drawback, because it forces the writer to either squash EVERY idea down to
22 pages, or break up their stories over several months if necessary.
There are pluses and minuses to both, I think. Most writers seem to
balance things well. There are a few who choose to pursue a VERY serial
storyline, but they are in the minority.
>Look at Alan Moore's current run on "Supreme", a title that had
>all the same problems I listed before, before he came onboard.
>Alan is writing individual stories for EACH issue, but keeps the
>back story where it belongs... In the background. Any of those
>issues is a good jumping on point for a new reader.
That's great, but SUPREME is a fairly simplistic comic right now. Moore
is consciously aping pre-Crisis Superman, and so there isn't a lot of depth
to the characters. It's clever, and entertaining. And that's great. It
has its place. But I think it would be a mistake to try to subject all of
the current batch of comics to that kind of limitation.
Brian.
Juliesback
>From: joha...@aol.com (JohannaLD)
>Date: Mon, Nov 3, 1997 15:26 EST
>I do find it amusing that people are arguing that superheroes (as
>represented by Clark "Lois & Superman will date for many many
>years pre-Crisis" Kent) have more character development than
>Archie "I choose Cheryl Blossom" Andrews and friends. Seems about
>the same to me, although I know people here would like to see more.
>I am curious as to how many people arguing about Archies read them
>regularly, though, since some of the statements about them seem to
>deal more with the stereotypes about them than their reality.
Sorry for the late response:
Well, I consider Archie less "realistic" than mainstream books for various
reaons, mostly that there is no consistent continuity. Just a "back-story,"
which is rarely consistent. Where's Veronica's mother? For the first five
years I read Archie comics, I thought Mr. Lodge was a single father, then Mrs.
Lodge pops up.
In different issues, sometimes published the same month, Veronica and Betty are
bitter enemies and in others, they're the best of friends. In some issues,
Betty is a saint. In others, she's vindictive and petty. Same with Jughead.
Even with Reggie (in some issues, he and Archie are tighter than Archie and
Jughead..in fact, they sometimes play cruel pranks on Juggie together).
None of this would fly at DC or Marvel, which demands consistency (though it
fails most of the time).
And that's ANOTHER issue...
______________________________________
Stephen Robinson
scholar, lover, crimefighter
Dan McEwen
On 5 Nov 1997 14:00:01 -0700, schl...@primenet.com (Mark Schlesinger)
wrote:
>In article <19971104044...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>KrytenToo <kryt...@aol.com> wrote:
><stuff snipped>
>>
>>Oh, what a surprise. You ignored all the rest of my arguments so
>>that you could make your point. Now that you have, you can address
>>my other points. Namely, in Archie comics, characters do not have
>>any developement, nor do actions have repercussions. In the DCU,
>>and in real life, people/characters do change, and actions do have
>>consequences. Thus, DC comics are closer to reality in storytelling
>>style, character development, and character interaction than Archie
>>comics.
>>
> I often notice dead people coming back to life in reality,
>just like the DCU.
>
Me, too. It's one of my biggest points as to why comics so much
parallel real life. Why, just yesterday, my dead friend dropped by
for a visit...right after I flew down from from the sky.
You have to discount the fantasy element and look at the *human*
element. That's what makes DCU more like "real life" than Archie
Comics.
Oh, and I don't perpetually "forget" things that happened to me, nor
do I know real, live witches (Sabrina, as someone pointed out
elsewhere) that can fly on broomsticks.
ShutUpRob
In article <19971104130...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
joha...@aol.com (JohannaLD) writes:
>From Dan McEwen
>>>we're not trying to get people to continue to buy?
>
>I think we're trying to get people not to feel forced to buy. Because when
>that happens, without alternatives to convoluted storylines and cross-
>linked books, it's too easy for frustrated readers to drop comics all
>together instead of trying something else.
I'll agree on the subject of convoluted storylines, but cross-linked
books? Naaah. The problem isn't that they cross-over -- it's that
the cross-overs are convoluted. Bad storytelling. And they're
not bad storytelling because they cross-over, they're bad storytelling
because the stories are poorly executed.
ShutUpRob
In article <19971104124...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) writes:
>
>In article <19971104044...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>kryt...@aol.com (KrytenToo) writes:
>
>> Namely, in Archie comics, characters do not have
>>any developement, nor do actions have repercussions. In the DCU,
>>and in real life, people/characters do change, and actions do have
>>consequences. Thus, DC comics are closer to reality in storytelling
>>style, character development, and character interaction than Archie
>>comics.
>
>Yep--like I said elsewhere, what the continuity junkies think makes
>JLA more realistic than Archie is (well, whadayano) continuity.
Not ONLY that, but, like I've said elsewhere, Archie comics are
NOT realistic because they resort to slapstick and caricature far
more often even than superhero comics. IMO, neither is more
realistic than the other -- they vary from the realism in different
manners. However, IMO, superhero comics CONTAIN more
realism than Archie comics simply because the characters
evolve and change and grow and therefore are far more
psychologically realistic than any character Dan DeCarlo's
ever drawn with the names Archie, Betty, Veronica, Jughead
or Reggie in the title.
ShutUpRob
In article <19971104131...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
joha...@aol.com (JohannaLD) writes:
>>in Archie comics, characters do not have
>>any developement, nor do actions have repercussions.
>
>Not completely true -- they do have repercussions WITHIN the given
>story. They just don't have long-term repercussions.
>
>I think superhero stories work the same way, actually. Take that
>Aquaman annual story where he meets Wonder Woman as a teenager.
>Now, that meeting had repercussions within the story, but we haven't
>seen reference to it in, for example, their interactions within the JLA.
Gawd, that's taking the concept of continuity to an absurd
extreme. We've never said that all past experiences need to be
*referred* to in every story that characters partake in -- we're
arguing that the writer needs to *know the characters that s/he's
writing well enough that new stories do not explicity CONTRADICT
previous stories.*
>Come to think of it, we haven't seen effects from Diana's leadership
>of the JL in the current run, either.
Let's take a f'r instance in real life -- Johanna, at your next job,
are you going to mention that you've been an online rep for DC
Comics every single day for the rest of your life, or even every
single time the subject of online reps comes up? Of course not.
You're only going to say something when you think of something
to add -- and, moreover, when you *feel* like adding something to
the conversation.
That doesn't excuse a writer using Wonder Woman in the JLA
from the responsibility of knowing that she leader of the JL toward
the tail end of its previous incarnation. I can't conceive of a single
instructor of any kind of fiction writing in any medium who would
who would share Pat's contempt for continuity, much less crusade
against it with Pat's level of pigheaded zealotry.
ShutUpRob
In article <19971103124...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) writes:
>In article <19971103010...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>shut...@aol.com (ShutUpRob) writes:
>
>> I wasn't talking about CONTENT. I was talking about STORYTELLING
>>STYLE.
>
>Fine--explain what you mean by storytelling style. Others here have
>said you don't mean the artwork. What do you mean?
Others picked up what I meant -- you're one of the few people,
if not the ONLY one, to not understand what I meant. Therefore,
I conclude that the problem is that you are too obtuse to understand
English. I will not accomodate cretins like you.
Don't waste your time making a fool of yourself here -- especially
if you're not going to give a post more than a cursory, half-assed
read.
Matthew P Wiener
In article <63jofu$cmt$1...@news.vanderbilt.edu>, "Patrick Thompson" <patrick.h.thompson@vanderbilt writes:
>PatDOneill wrote in message
><19971102175...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>>We HAVE lost the kids you talk about...and we've lost them, in part,
>>because we've made comics too damned hard to follow. We've made
>>comics into an obsessive purchase instead of a casual one.
>[...] Several of the times I wanted to get into comics were during
>major DC events, like Zero Hour (I have the promo poster on my dorm
>wall), the Knight* events, and Death/Return of Superman. However,
>whenever I wanted to get into those events, I discovered that to get
>a coherent story I would need to buy an absurd number of comics.
>Since I wasn't ready to drop some major cash to get the whole
>plotline, I walked away. [...]
I was a regular buyer of comics throughout the 80s. Nothing fanatical,
but I did spend maybe $10-$20 a week.
But when massive summer crossovers started becoming an annual frenzy, I
simply stopped cold turkey, except for CONAN and GROO. I've picked up a
few titles in the meantime, but very few. Most of my comic book money
now goes to back issues. I can afford to drop major cash, but it's just
not worth it braincellwise. Marvel and DC have taught me to simply not
care. I mean, if they obviously don't care about their characters, why
should I? Amongst other things, I absolutely refuse to buy anything that
gets hyped in the mainstream media, like the death, return, and marriage
of Superman.
--
-Matthew P Wiener (wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Juliesback
>From: patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill)
>Date: Thu, Nov 6, 1997 08:06 EST
>Know any teenagers? Sounds like the ones I know.
>
>
Hey, I was a teenager, uh, nearly FIVE years ago? What the hell? Where did the
time go?
Mark Schlesinger
In article <19971106130...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
ShutUpRob <shut...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <19971104124...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) writes:
>
>>
>>In article <19971104044...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>>kryt...@aol.com (KrytenToo) writes:
>>
>>> Namely, in Archie comics, characters do not have
>>>any developement, nor do actions have repercussions. In the DCU,
>>>and in real life, people/characters do change, and actions do have
>>>consequences. Thus, DC comics are closer to reality in storytelling
>>>style, character development, and character interaction than Archie
>>>comics.
>>
>>Yep--like I said elsewhere, what the continuity junkies think makes
>>JLA more realistic than Archie is (well, whadayano) continuity.
>
> Not ONLY that, but, like I've said elsewhere, Archie comics are
>NOT realistic because they resort to slapstick and caricature far
>more often even than superhero comics. IMO, neither is more
>realistic than the other -- they vary from the realism in different
>manners. However, IMO, superhero comics CONTAIN more
>realism than Archie comics simply because the characters
>evolve and change and grow and therefore are far more
>psychologically realistic than any character Dan DeCarlo's
>ever drawn with the names Archie, Betty, Veronica, Jughead
>or Reggie in the title.
>
of super-hero stories having realism, why do the comic companies continually
reset the characters back(i.e. Crisis, Zero Hour, Heroes Reborn, etc)?
Mark
--
Mark Schlesinger When criminals in this world appear
schl...@primenet.com And break the laws that they should fear
Typical Boring Sig And frighten all who see and hear
The cry goes up both far and near for Underdog
Mark Schlesinger
In article <63risj$q...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
Dan McEwen <fe...@lsh.org> wrote:
>On 5 Nov 1997 14:00:01 -0700, schl...@primenet.com (Mark Schlesinger)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <19971104044...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>>KrytenToo <kryt...@aol.com> wrote:
>><stuff snipped>
>>>
>>>Oh, what a surprise. You ignored all the rest of my arguments so
>>>that you could make your point. Now that you have, you can address
>>>any developement, nor do actions have repercussions. In the DCU,
>>>and in real life, people/characters do change, and actions do have
>>>consequences. Thus, DC comics are closer to reality in storytelling
>>>style, character development, and character interaction than Archie
>>>comics.
>>>
>>just like the DCU.
>>
>Me, too. It's one of my biggest points as to why comics so much
>parallel real life. Why, just yesterday, my dead friend dropped by
>for a visit...right after I flew down from from the sky.
>
>You have to discount the fantasy element and look at the *human*
>element. That's what makes DCU more like "real life" than Archie
>Comics.
>
attention to the fantasy element of Archie to show me that the DCU
is more realistic?
>
>Oh, and I don't perpetually "forget" things that happened to me, nor
>do I know real, live witches (Sabrina, as someone pointed out
>elsewhere) that can fly on broomsticks.
>
And I occasionally forget things that happen to me. For instance, I swore
that my wife and I saw a particular movie and my wife insisted we didn't.
Does this mean that our lives aren't realistic since our continuities don't
match up?
Mark Schlesinger
In article <asveenst-051...@usr3-170.portup.com>,
Aaron S. Veenstra <asve...@mtu.edu> wrote:
>In article <63qmoh$n...@nntp02.primenet.com>, schl...@primenet.com (Mark
>Schlesinger) wrote:
>
>> just like the DCU.
>
>realistic situations or realism of content? If you want to argue and be
>taken seriously, you need to be able to stay on the topic. Otherwise you
>wind up looking like Pat.
>
have realistic content and/or realistic situations how can you have a
realistic story?
Aaron S. Veenstra
In article <63sov8$p...@nntp02.primenet.com>, schl...@primenet.com (Mark
Schlesinger) wrote:
> Then what kind of reality are you talking about? If you don't
> have realistic content and/or realistic situations how can you have a
> realistic story?
It's not about a realisitic *story*. Look in the mirror and repeat that
fifteen times. It's about realistic character behavior and growth. The
characters in most super-hero books act like real people. The characters
in Archie books do not. This has nothing to do with the plot of the
story, or whether the character in question can shoot energy beams from
his/her eyes. Please try to apply basic reading comprehension to this
post.
Mark Schlesinger
In article <asveenst-061...@usr1-42.portup.com>,
>Schlesinger) wrote:
>
>> Then what kind of reality are you talking about? If you don't
>> have realistic content and/or realistic situations how can you have a
>> realistic story?
>
>It's not about a realisitic *story*. Look in the mirror and repeat that
>fifteen times. It's about realistic character behavior and growth. The
>characters in most super-hero books act like real people. The characters
>in Archie books do not. This has nothing to do with the plot of the
>story, or whether the character in question can shoot energy beams from
>his/her eyes. Please try to apply basic reading comprehension to this
>post.
>
act realistic(especially when the character has been portrayed as being 30
for the last 60 years)? How much growth can their be when the entire
DCU has been reset twice in the last 15 years. The characters in Archie
act more like "real" people than the flying humans and shape-changing
aliens.
PatDOneill
In article <asveenst-061...@usr1-42.portup.com>,
asve...@mtu.edu (Aaron S. Veenstra) writes:
>It's not about a realisitic *story*. Look in the mirror and repeat that
>fifteen times. It's about realistic character behavior and growth. The
>characters in most super-hero books act like real people. The characters
>in Archie books do not. This has nothing to do with the plot of the
>story, or whether the character in question can shoot energy beams from
>his/her eyes. Please try to apply basic reading comprehension to this
>post.
Oh, yeah, it's very realistic character behavior for dead people
to come back to life. Happens all the time.
ShutUpRob
In article <63sopl$p...@nntp02.primenet.com>, schl...@primenet.com (Mark
Schlesinger) writes:
>
>In article <19971106130...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>ShutUpRob <shut...@aol.com> wrote:
>>In article <19971104124...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>>patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) writes:
>>
>>>
>>>In article <19971104044...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>>>kryt...@aol.com (KrytenToo) writes:
>>>
>>>> Namely, in Archie comics, characters do not have
>>>>any developement, nor do actions have repercussions. In the DCU,
>>>>and in real life, people/characters do change, and actions do have
>>>>consequences. Thus, DC comics are closer to reality in storytelling
>>>>style, character development, and character interaction than Archie
>>>>comics.
>>>
>>>Yep--like I said elsewhere, what the continuity junkies think makes
>>>JLA more realistic than Archie is (well, whadayano) continuity.
>>
>> Not ONLY that, but, like I've said elsewhere, Archie comics are
>>NOT realistic because they resort to slapstick and caricature far
>>more often even than superhero comics. IMO, neither is more
>>realistic than the other -- they vary from the realism in different
>>manners. However, IMO, superhero comics CONTAIN more
>>realism than Archie comics simply because the characters
>>evolve and change and grow and therefore are far more
>>psychologically realistic than any character Dan DeCarlo's
>>ever drawn with the names Archie, Betty, Veronica, Jughead
>>or Reggie in the title.
>>
> If having characters evolve and grow is such a integral part
>of super-hero stories having realism, why do the comic companies continually
>reset the characters back(i.e. Crisis, Zero Hour, Heroes Reborn, etc)?
Because DC and Marvel don't know how they want to regard
the histories of their characters. I'll say this for Archie -- at least
it's openly contemptuous of continuity.
Dan McEwen
On 6 Nov 1997 13:01:37 GMT, shut...@aol.com (ShutUpRob) wrote:
>In article <19971103124...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) writes:
>
>>In article <19971103010...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>>shut...@aol.com (ShutUpRob) writes:
>>
>>> I wasn't talking about CONTENT. I was talking about STORYTELLING
>>>STYLE.
>>
>>Fine--explain what you mean by storytelling style. Others here have
>>said you don't mean the artwork. What do you mean?
>
> Others picked up what I meant -- you're one of the few people,
>if not the ONLY one, to not understand what I meant. Therefore,
>I conclude that the problem is that you are too obtuse to understand
>English. I will not accomodate cretins like you.
>
> Don't waste your time making a fool of yourself here -- especially
>if you're not going to give a post more than a cursory, half-assed
>read.
>
Rob, I understand what you're saying. *However*, if you wish to make
a valid argument, you have to make sure everyone understands what you
say.
Dan McEwen
On 6 Nov 1997 08:55:00 -0700, schl...@primenet.com (Mark Schlesinger)
wrote:
>In article <63risj$q...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
>Dan McEwen <fe...@lsh.org> wrote:
>>You have to discount the fantasy element and look at the *human*
>>element. That's what makes DCU more like "real life" than Archie
>>Comics.
>>
> So I have to ignore the fantasy element of the DCU and pay
>attention to the fantasy element of Archie to show me that the DCU
>is more realistic?
No, you're not gonna put me in that corner. I feel that a) Archie has
a fantasy element (the same one you claim makes super-hero comics
unrealistic), b) Archie characters don't act like "real life"
teenagers, and c) Archie characters have little-to-none contiunity,
very unlike real life. So even if we discount the fantasy element of
both types of comics, that leaves super-heroes more realistic.
Super-hero comics show characters with continuity (like real life) and
what I consider to be *more* realistic characterization (closer to
real life than Archie).
>>Oh, and I don't perpetually "forget" things that happened to me, nor
>>do I know real, live witches (Sabrina, as someone pointed out
>>elsewhere) that can fly on broomsticks.
>>
> I've met witches(but they haven't shown me their broomsticks yet).
>And I occasionally forget things that happen to me. For instance, I swore
>that my wife and I saw a particular movie and my wife insisted we didn't.
>Does this mean that our lives aren't realistic since our continuities don't
>match up?
>
Archie has no memory of any particular event in his past because, as
far is the story is concerned, it may or may not have happened. Is
that a common occurrence in your life? Do things happen to you and
then _not_ happen? Or, to be more accurate, *maybe* not happen?
Alleigh
schl...@primenet.com (Mark Schlesinger) wrote:
>In article <asveenst-061...@usr1-42.portup.com>,
>Aaron S. Veenstra <asve...@mtu.edu> wrote:
>>In article <63sov8$p...@nntp02.primenet.com>, schl...@primenet.com (Mark
>>Schlesinger) wrote:
>>
>>> Then what kind of reality are you talking about? If you don't
>>> have realistic content and/or realistic situations how can you have a
>>> realistic story?
>>
>>It's not about a realisitic *story*. Look in the mirror and repeat that
>>fifteen times. It's about realistic character behavior and growth. The
>>characters in most super-hero books act like real people. The characters
>>in Archie books do not. This has nothing to do with the plot of the
>>story, or whether the character in question can shoot energy beams from
>>his/her eyes. Please try to apply basic reading comprehension to this
>>post.
>>
> How can a character who shoots energy beams out from his/her eyes
>act realistic(especially when the character has been portrayed as being 30
>for the last 60 years)? How much growth can their be when the entire
>DCU has been reset twice in the last 15 years. The characters in Archie
>act more like "real" people than the flying humans and shape-changing
>aliens.
Haven't the Archie characters been the same age for years - and you
missed the point. They were saying there are basic realistic parts to
the stories - not to the characters.
Alleigh
schl...@primenet.com (Mark Schlesinger) wrote:
> I've met witches(but they haven't shown me their broomsticks yet).
Hey this is the 90's witches use vacuum (sp ?) cleaners - at least on
the Sabrina tv show.
>And I occasionally forget things that happen to me. For instance, I swore
>that my wife and I saw a particular movie and my wife insisted we didn't.
>Does this mean that our lives aren't realistic since our continuities don't
>match up?
Yes you two are not from the same reality - <vbg>
Aaron S. Veenstra
In article
<C6E416222D3D7623.CBA4B56D...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
rog...@airmail.net wrote:
> Mark Schlesinger wrote:
> > How can a character who shoots energy beams out from his/her eyes
> >act realistic(especially when the character has been portrayed as being 30
> >for the last 60 years)?
Well, for instance, the character could get married and have said marriage
carry on to further stories. If you really can't see this, then it's no
wonder you don't understand what people are talking about here.
> >How much growth can their be when the entire
> >DCU has been reset twice in the last 15 years. The characters in Archie
> >act more like "real" people than the flying humans and shape-changing
> >aliens.
The entire DCU line has never been reset. Some Pre-Crisis stories still
count and, AFAIK, only the Legion was reset during Zero Hour. And even if
the whole line had been reset both times, they aren't comparable to having
no continuity.
> Haven't the Archie characters been the same age for years - and you
> missed the point. They were saying there are basic realistic parts to
> the stories - not to the characters.
I think you both missed the point. The point is, given fantastic
situations (i.e. people can fly, etc.), characters in super-hero books act
realistically. Given normal situations, characters in Archie books act
fantastically. Hell, given fantastic situations (Super-teens, Dilton's
inventions, etc.), characters in Archie books act fantastically. That,
and there's no continuity which provides no basis for character
development.
Mark Schlesinger
><C6E416222D3D7623.CBA4B56D...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
>rog...@airmail.net wrote:
>
>> Mark Schlesinger wrote:
>> > How can a character who shoots energy beams out from his/her eyes
>> >act realistic(especially when the character has been portrayed as being 30
>> >for the last 60 years)?
>
>Well, for instance, the character could get married and have said marriage
>carry on to further stories. If you really can't see this, then it's no
>wonder you don't understand what people are talking about here.
>
fantastic character trying to act realistic is more realistic than the Archie
type comics.
>
>> >How much growth can their be when the entire
>> >DCU has been reset twice in the last 15 years. The characters in Archie
>> >act more like "real" people than the flying humans and shape-changing
>> >aliens.
>
>The entire DCU line has never been reset. Some Pre-Crisis stories still
>count and, AFAIK, only the Legion was reset during Zero Hour. And even if
>the whole line had been reset both times, they aren't comparable to having
>no continuity.
>
time is more realistic than acknowleding that there is no continuity?
>
>> Haven't the Archie characters been the same age for years - and you
>> missed the point. They were saying there are basic realistic parts to
>> the stories - not to the characters.
>
>I think you both missed the point. The point is, given fantastic
>situations (i.e. people can fly, etc.), characters in super-hero books act
>realistically. Given normal situations, characters in Archie books act
>fantastically. Hell, given fantastic situations (Super-teens, Dilton's
>inventions, etc.), characters in Archie books act fantastically. That,
>and there's no continuity which provides no basis for character
>development.
>
realistic characters acting fantastic(say that three times fast).
Within an Archie(or Archie type) story, there is continuity, Archie
doesn't start calling himself Biff, and there is character development,
Jughead realizes he was acting like a jerk. When I finish the story, why should
I care if a different author in a different comic follows up on the same
story? I can read different books about King Arthur(say Marion Zimmer Bradley
and T.H. White) about the same characters in the same time frame and not
insist that they match up perfectly, if at all. Why should Doug Moench
writing Batman have to keep up with, and try not to make changes, to a
Detective story by Chuck Dixon? Why can't I read different interpretations
of the character that don't necessarily overlap each other and even possibly
contradict each other?
Mark Schlesinger
In article <C6E416222D3D7623.CBA4B56D...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
Alleigh <rog...@airmail.net> wrote:
>schl...@primenet.com (Mark Schlesinger) wrote:
>
>>In article <asveenst-061...@usr1-42.portup.com>,
>>Aaron S. Veenstra <asve...@mtu.edu> wrote:
>>>Schlesinger) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Then what kind of reality are you talking about? If you don't
>>>> have realistic content and/or realistic situations how can you have a
>>>> realistic story?
>>>
>>>It's not about a realisitic *story*. Look in the mirror and repeat that
>>>fifteen times. It's about realistic character behavior and growth. The
>>>characters in most super-hero books act like real people. The characters
>>>in Archie books do not. This has nothing to do with the plot of the
>>>story, or whether the character in question can shoot energy beams from
>>>his/her eyes. Please try to apply basic reading comprehension to this
>>>post.
>>>
>>act realistic(especially when the character has been portrayed as being 30
>>DCU has been reset twice in the last 15 years. The characters in Archie
>>act more like "real" people than the flying humans and shape-changing
>>aliens.
>
>missed the point. They were saying there are basic realistic parts to
>the stories - not to the characters.
>
than realistic characters acting exaggerated?
Mark Schlesinger
In article <34624bb2...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
Dan McEwen <fe...@lsh.org> wrote:
>On 6 Nov 1997 08:55:00 -0700, schl...@primenet.com (Mark Schlesinger)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <63risj$q...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
>>Dan McEwen <fe...@lsh.org> wrote:
>
>>>You have to discount the fantasy element and look at the *human*
>>>element. That's what makes DCU more like "real life" than Archie
>>>Comics.
>>>
>> So I have to ignore the fantasy element of the DCU and pay
>>attention to the fantasy element of Archie to show me that the DCU
>>is more realistic?
>
>No, you're not gonna put me in that corner. I feel that a) Archie has
>a fantasy element (the same one you claim makes super-hero comics
>unrealistic), b) Archie characters don't act like "real life"
>teenagers, and c) Archie characters have little-to-none contiunity,
>very unlike real life. So even if we discount the fantasy element of
>both types of comics, that leaves super-heroes more realistic.
>Super-hero comics show characters with continuity (like real life) and
>what I consider to be *more* realistic characterization (closer to
>real life than Archie).
>
who have a continuity and character growth within stories, but not between
stories, so they aren't realistic. But superhero stories have unrealistic
characters in unrealistic situations and with continuity and character
growth in stories and between stories(except when we reboot it) and
they are realistic. Is that your basic arguement?
>
>>>Oh, and I don't perpetually "forget" things that happened to me, nor
>>>do I know real, live witches (Sabrina, as someone pointed out
>>>elsewhere) that can fly on broomsticks.
>>>
>>that my wife and I saw a particular movie and my wife insisted we didn't.
>>Does this mean that our lives aren't realistic since our continuities don't
>>match up?
>>
>far is the story is concerned, it may or may not have happened. Is
>that a common occurrence in your life? Do things happen to you and
>then _not_ happen? Or, to be more accurate, *maybe* not happen?
>
on whose version of continuity you believe? I've done things and then
fogotten I've done it(and would swear that I didn't do it). Does that
mean I am not realistic(or just going senile at an early age)?
Mark Schlesinger
In article <19971107050...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
ShutUpRob <shut...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> If DC and Marvel are going to keep up the PRETENSE of
>continuity in an attempt to entertain me, I'm going to hold them
>to the pretense.
>
I don't even see them having the pretense. All the continuity
errors that people complain about were officially published by DC without
any warnings or labels to put them out of continuity. And they also feel
free to change characters, characterization, or universes if they think
it will sell better.
Mark Schlesinger
>patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) writes:
>
>>Oh, yeah, it's very realistic character behavior for dead people
>>to come back to life. Happens all the time.
>
>
>
But they're coming back as a different person(or species depending
on how well you did this time around).
JohannaLD
From: fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput)
>Yep, like the current plotline in LSH being continued in ACTION COMICS,
>which *does* leave readers feeling "forced to buy."
As I keep trying to point out, the Legion make a GUEST APPEARANCE in
Action. It's not a crossover. (Why do people insist on spreading rumors that
get them all riled up? Are they getting off on being indignent or something?)
(Besides, Legion is like the worst possible example, given that many Legion
fans decided a one-panel gag made Guy Gardener 29 a must-have. :) )
Johanna
ShutUpRob
>In article <asveenst-061...@usr1-42.portup.com>,
>asve...@mtu.edu (Aaron S. Veenstra) writes:
>
>>It's not about a realisitic *story*. Look in the mirror and repeat that
>>fifteen times. It's about realistic character behavior and growth. The
>>characters in most super-hero books act like real people. The characters
>>in Archie books do not. This has nothing to do with the plot of the
>>story, or whether the character in question can shoot energy beams from
>>his/her eyes. Please try to apply basic reading comprehension to this
>>post.
>
>Oh, yeah, it's very realistic character behavior for dead people
>to come back to life. Happens all the time.
According to, oh, a third of the planet, it happened at least once.
-- Rob Jensen
JohannaLD
From: spi...@aloha.no-spam.net (Lyle Masaki)
>A decade ago, most TV serials knew how effectively juggle a large cast
Speaking of which, I noticed today that one soap was running a "happened
so far" at the beginning, similar to what nighttime serials (like LA Law) do.
Is this now common? Have ALL continuity-based genres succumbed to
this?
(Yes, yes, I know, being home during the day, soaps are a terrible
temptation.)
Johanna
ShutUpRob
In article <63td80$7...@nntp02.primenet.com>, schl...@primenet.com (Mark
Schlesinger) writes:
>
>In article <19971106210...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> So if the writers can't keep up with the continuity and the
>companies don't care about keeping a tight continuity, why should I,
>as a reader, care about or keep up with continuity? It's never going to
>make sense or tie together well(or at all), so I'd rather just enjoy
>the stories based on the story, not on an imagined continuity which no one
>manages.
>
>
If DC and Marvel are going to keep up the PRETENSE of
continuity in an attempt to entertain me, I'm going to hold them
to the pretense.
-- Rob Jensen
ShutUpRob
In article <34624a9f...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, fe...@lsh.org (Dan
McEwen ) writes:
>
>On 6 Nov 1997 13:01:37 GMT, shut...@aol.com (ShutUpRob) wrote:
>
>>In article <19971103124...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>>patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) writes:
>>
>>>In article <19971103010...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>>>shut...@aol.com (ShutUpRob) writes:
>>>
>>>> I wasn't talking about CONTENT. I was talking about STORYTELLING
>>>>STYLE.
>>>
>>>Fine--explain what you mean by storytelling style. Others here have
>>>said you don't mean the artwork. What do you mean?
>>
>> Others picked up what I meant -- you're one of the few people,
>>if not the ONLY one, to not understand what I meant. Therefore,
>>I conclude that the problem is that you are too obtuse to understand
>>English. I will not accomodate cretins like you.
>>
>> Don't waste your time making a fool of yourself here -- especially
>>if you're not going to give a post more than a cursory, half-assed
>>read.
>>
>
>Rob, I understand what you're saying. *However*, if you wish to make
>a valid argument, you have to make sure everyone understands what you
>say.
Just about everybody did except for Pat and Mikko, who I have
no interest in accomodating because they have both proven that
they do not bother to read for context, for comprehension or for
completeness -- therefore, I think that I said what was necessary.
If they can't figure it out when everybody else CAN, that's
their problem, not mine. I'm not going to clarify my words any more
than I think they have to be when Pat has already demonstrated his
reading comprehension problems with his complete misunderstanding
of Flash #130.