Re: In Defense Of Continuity

 "Luke Hodgson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> You both seem to have resisted the temptation to get "personal" and 
> to simply argue semantics. I see really good points on both sides.

Isn't that neat? Restores my faith in discussion. 

> Firstly, what is it that you both want to prove? 

I don't think I'm out to prove anything; I'm curious about understanding 
David's position, and I'm trying to explain mine in a way that helps 
others understand it. 

> I'm afraid we'd have to conclude that series that do "use" continuity ("not
> contradicting continuity" in a regular series is another matter) are, in
> fact, immensely popular. Johanna cites Kingdom Come, Crisis and Marvels as
> series that she found distracting due to their heavy reliance on shared
> universes, yet these series are some of Marvel and DC's best sellers! 

That's a really interesting observation. Let's bear in mind that these 
are also blockbuster events that feature superstar creators, and they're 
marketed and positioned outside the usual flow of the universes. 

Your question, if posed in terms of regular series, about economic 
success or failure based on use of continuity, is a tough one to answer 
without doing a widespread survey. 

The most obvious example is the Ultimates. Huge sellers, anti-continuity 
(in my opinion, but would others agree?). Loeb and Lee's BATMAN also had 
continuity contradictions, but topped the charts consistently. What's 
the most successful pro-con story? Opinions? 

> I'm kinda proud of the fact that I KNOW when a mistake has
> been made. 

That's really cool. And I do enjoy reading discussions that point these 
things out, if they're done in a light way (as opposed to "this story 
sucks because they didn't get this right"). 

> We are snobs. In the nicest possible way, of course.

And for years, comics catered to that (with Stan Lee's bluster about 
True Believers and all that, for example), so I can understand why a 
movement away from valuing that knowledge and experience would be 
wrenching. 

Heck, I used to be able to keep Legion V4 straight, and I was proud of 
that. I was glad that the reboot made it simpler, though. 

> And why shouldn't we be? Sherlock Holmes fans would be very upset if the
> mass media started asking people to believe that Holmes lived a "221B
> Elizabeth Street". A small thing, but important to them.

Yet Holmes fans put up with the writer putting Watson's bullet wound in 
various parts of his body at different times. :) 

> Why shouldn't we debate features like consistency in the same
> way that we question Katherine's motives in Wuthering Heights?

Usually literary analysis of the Brontes doesn't include the phrase "you 
suck". :) 

Seriously, honest debates like this one are valuable. It's hard to avoid 
sinking to the more casual, emotional level, though. Takes more work 
than some people want to put into a conversational medium. (And that's 
ok.) If we can keep things at this level, why not analyze the problems 
in JLA/Avengers? (Have there been any?) 

> I'm asking you not to make me lose my inner child.

Clap clap clap. Nice post.

-- 
Johanna Draper Carlson             
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com