Re: In Defense Of Continuity

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

Me too. This has been a most pleasant and enlightening thread to read.

> > 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.

Again, isn't that wonderful? You can agree to disagree (and I think you
have), but you can still discuss this topic without sinking into cheap shots
or arguements about semantics (Sigh, I am sick of arguements about sematics
and grammar. Not that I don't think that they are important...)

> 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.

But they exist. They exist to cater  for a particular market. That they are
blockbuster events is part of why they are cross-over events and why only
the superstar creators get to play with them.

> 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.

Yes, you're right. It's hard to see how we'd establish this in terms of a
regular series. But I'm really talking about cross-over events and books
that use cross-overs or continuity as their raison detre or as one of their
central themes (eg. JSA). League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is a good
example. Sales figures indicate that these series are immensely popular.
And, in the case of LEoG, critically acclaimed (not that that can be said
for all such books).

> 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?

Yep. Different kettle of fish. These series don't use continuity as their
central motif. I discussed these sorts of stories further down in my post.
:-)
Loeb and Lee's Batman was excellent. Why would I complain about it? The
continuity contradictions could be annoying, if the story wasn't so good.
Maybe that's the key? I'd easily forgive such contradictions for a REALLY
good story. Often these sorts of contradictions take place in really bad
stories though, and that's when I get annoyed. What is a "really bad story"?
Again, how can we describe that?
We all forgive the cotradictions that Morrison's Earth 2 had with that issue
of Justice League Quarterly that featured a Quardian Crime Syndicate,
beacause Earth 2 was GOOD (in my opinion anyway). Besides, we can explain
the inconsistency away but making a few mental leaps (which is what Buseik
does in JLA/Avengers anyway).

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

Fantastic point! And one which cuts to another point regarding this
discussion. How much inconsistency is a reader prepared to accept? The
Holmes fans have made up various convoluted explanations for why Watson
might describe his wound as being in different places. Is it that fans will
accept inconsistencies that they can "explain away"  (with some creative
licence, of course)? I think that a lot of posts here have indicated that
there are several levels of inconsistency and the mistake that a lot of us
are making is lumping all these inconsistencies in together. It makes
"pro-cons" (charming term) easy targets when others can call them all anal
by using examples that resemble the inconsistencies that are like Watson's
wound. It's not that people like me get annoyed when Batman has a different
Batmobile in his own books as opposed to in JLA. That would make me TRULY
anal. There are other aspects that CAN annoy me though - Krypton looks
completely different for instance. How we can define the difference is
something that I'm not sure I can pin down.

> > 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". :)

They might if you are 12 years old. But we're a bit too mature to rely on
the "you suck" defence :-)

> 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.)

And written discussion is easier to take personally and to misinterperet as
being hostile than face-to-face discussion. You can't see the smile on my
face or hear the tone of my voice. People tend to make assumptions and
assume hostility. That's why we have smileys :-)
By the way, for the record, I'm actually a petty nice guy and would never
want to be nasty to anyone. Comes from building a lot of my morals on
growing up reading Superman...

Does that make me sick...?

If we can keep things at this level, why not analyze the problems
> in JLA/Avengers? (Have there been any?)

Not for me. I'm too heady with the whole thing to start nit-picking.

> Clap clap clap. Nice post.

Why thank-you, Johanna. And to you too, David.