Re: In defense of Continuity

Pat ONeill repsonded to me:

> >"Never"?  I've seen references to Beetle Bailey in Hi and Lois, and vice
> >versa.  (Lois is Beetle's sister.)
>
> Yeah--but the joke never requires knowing that fact.

You're changing the subject.  You wrote "Yeah, but you never saw a serial
chapter refer you to an incident that occurred in ANOTHER serial--even one
that used the same characters--the way that comics do today."

I have shown this statement to be false.  Since you're not in the habit of
acknowledging it when that happens, I will take your silence as
acquiescence.  (Which is, of course, etymologically precise.)

Let's move on your tour new subject.  you wrote:

> Yeah--but the joke never requires knowing that fact.

Oh, I agree.  It's often poor writing if the references are needed and
aren't explained in exposition.  But that doesn't mean that continuity is
bad; it means that poor writing is bad.  This issue is unrelated to the
value of preserving the history of your characters.  Consider two parallel
statements.

1. A plot that requires knowing earlier stories is bad.  Continuity is no
excuse for poor writing.
2. A plot that is damaged by knowing earlier stories is bad.
Anti-continuity is no excuse for poor writing.

Both statements are equally true, so pointing out how bad writing can occur
when the character's history is preserved and honored is no proof that the
history shouldn't be preserved and honored.

> >Old Green Hornet (Britt Reid) episodes
> >referred to his great-uncle, the Lone Ranger (John Reid).
>
> But the listener never needed to know that to understand the story.

Only in the same sense that you can understand a Batman story without
knowing about how his parents died.  Also, and mopre importantly, any time
the reader needs to know the backstory, it can, and should, be explained.

> > Batman and Robin
> >appeared on the Superman radio show.
> There was no "Batman" radio show. Therefore, Batman's only radio
incarnation
> was the one on the Superman series...and everything the audience needed to
know
> about Batman was provided in that series.

Hardly.  The audience knew who Batman was primarily from comics and serials.

> >In "Ghost of Zorro" (modern western
> >serial starring Clayton Moore), they begin with references to the Zorro
of
> >old California.
>
> There's a difference, IMO, between making cultural references (and by the
late
> '40s, Zorro is a pop culture figure) and making reference to another story
that
> the reader needs to know to follow the current one.

True.  Which one most accurately describes a sequel?

> > Mandrake made occasional appearances in the Phantom.
>
> I don't recall this at all.

He and Lothar appeared at the Phantom's wedding, but since Lee Falk didn't
(at that time) have the copyrights, he was listed as "Prince Lothar and
friend".

Back to continuity.  The problem is that the comics companies want the best
of both worlds.  They want us to be faithful to characters that they don't
want to be faithful to.  I have no problem with the idea of new stories
about a new hero.  But even if you name him Kal-El, don't expect me to treat
him with the forty years of respect and loyalty I have for Kal-El and his
cousin Kara.

Jay Rudin

[Note: No, I don't feel the need to point out who Kara is, or why she is no
longer considered his cousin.  If the comment made sense to you, it only did
so because you know enough of the backstory and comics history.  It was a
rhetorical point made stronger by the use of a known character history.  And
that's what you lose without a firm faith in your own characters' history.]