Comics are awesome.

[Sparky Prime]

Ooh! Ooh! I've got one! Dumbledore's gay. JK Rowling said so. But it never came up in the Potter books.

Like I said before, a book with a single author is a different situation than a comic book which has dozens of writers and editors, each with their own ideas. Just because someone on a comic book says something about the story - outside of said story, it isn't going to make that true in the story given how rapidly things can and do change in both its story and creative teams. A book with single author, however, is their story alone. They say something about their book -outside of the story, that instead becomes an extra insight into that story.

And also, there is a lot of subtext between Gellert Grindelwald and Dumbledore....

[Onslaught Six]

I definitely see what you're getting at. You would rather JK Rowling go, "Oh yeah, Dumbledore is gay now," rather than write an elaborate story about why Dumbledore is suddenly gay, and all the other characters go around saying, "Wow, Dumbledore, it sure is great that you're gay now."

I think what it is is that Sparky is viewing comics as a continuum. Things happen in a straight line, as if we're literally viewing a window into Spidey's (or Dumbledore's) universe. Dom and I see it for what it is--fiction. Spidey doesn't exist, so if someone really badly didn't want Peter and MJ to be married anymore, they can just go, "Okay, Spidey and Mary Jane never got married. That's it." It's still messy, and not the preferable option, but there you go.

The *prefered* option would be to simply 'not do that.' You want to write unmarried young Spidey? Set a story in that time period. If ongoing comics didn't have such a terrible sliding scale of time, this would be a lot easier. If I want to write a story about Bruce Wayne as a child, how do I even frame that opening? Gotham City, 1923? 1952? 1979? When does Year One take place?

It's simply a problem that ongoing universes, like 616 and Universe A, are going to have. There's a reason Neil Gaiman's Sandman was one of the best-selling comics in the 90s: It knew when the hell it was taking place and what was going on with it. The only thing remotely dated about Sandman is, occasionally, the art in the first few volumes. (There's some really bad instances of block colouring that aren't really corrected for the trades or anything--but it's how the books were originally printed, so whatever.)

Incidentally? TF never had this problem. It started in 1984, and ended in 1991, very neatly and cleanly. For all the hate Hama gets, the original Marvel run of GI Joe did the same thing just as well.

Ooh! Ooh! I've got one! Dumbledore's gay. JK Rowling said so. But it never came up in the Potter books.

Like I said before, a book with a single author is a different situation than a comic book which has dozens of writers and editors, each with their own ideas. Just because someone on a comic book says something about the story - outside of said story, it isn't going to make that true in the story given how rapidly things can and do change in both its story and creative teams. A book with single author, however, is their story alone. They say something about their book -outside of the story, that instead becomes an extra insight into that story.

And also, there is a lot of subtext between Gellert Grindelwald and Dumbledore....

And that's the other reason Sandman was so successful. One writer, a very consistant cover art style, and a rotating team of generally good artists. You get a bunch of other writers in there with their own ideas, all they're going to do is fuck shit up.

[Dominic]

There's a reason Neil Gaiman's Sandman was one of the best-selling comics in the 90s:

Emo teenage girls!

Sorry, could not resist.


In the case of something like TF or 616, the writer is not the most important party. They do not own the properties they work on, or even create. There are plenty of "new" characters that are closely associated with writers who defined, and even created, them. But, Michelinie does not own Iron Man. Starling does not own Warlock and Thanos. David does not own the Hulk. Simonson does not own even close to 50% of the Marvel Universe.

The characters are owned by companies. The companies generally give authority to choose direction for a title to one party, who in turn gives authority to execute that direction to another.

1979? When does Year One take place?

Assuming the 7 year rule that Anderson and I worked out, "Year One" now happened ~2000 or so, making Batman a few years younger than I am if we assume he was 20 during that story.

I see what you are saying though. An assumed editorial decree that forces updates is better than keeping Batman rooted to the gilded age. (Dammit, I really want a real time super comic....)

Incidentally? TF never had this problem. It started in 1984, and ended in 1991, very neatly and cleanly. For all the hate Hama gets, the original Marvel run of GI Joe did the same thing just as well.

Actually, Hama gets a huge amount of love. I think he is over-rated. But, aside from the incredibly crass "Mission that Never Was", I will defend him on his virtues. But, even Hama admits that Hasbro had not small amount of control over what he wrote. And, he also admits to pulling stuff out of his tuchus as he went along.


Dom
-still reeling about Sideswipe.

[Shockwave]

(Dammit, I really want a real time super comic....)

24 the comic? Sorry, I couldn't resist!

[Onslaught Six]

Valiant was trying really really hard to do the real-time thing when they started, and as far as I know, they generally kept their promises up until the Acclaim buyout.

[andersonh1]

What about 52? Every issue of that series was supposed to correspond to events during that actual week over the course of a year.

[Sparky Prime]

I definitely see what you're getting at. You would rather JK Rowling go, "Oh yeah, Dumbledore is gay now," rather than write an elaborate story about why Dumbledore is suddenly gay, and all the other characters go around saying, "Wow, Dumbledore, it sure is great that you're gay now."

Again, this is a terrible and inaccurate example. Dumbledore wasn't made to be gay, that's how Rowling *always* wrote the character. She just didn't (explicitly) reveal that fact in any of the books, so it came as a surprise to some fans when she stated it.

I think what it is is that Sparky is viewing comics as a continuum. Things happen in a straight line, as if we're literally viewing a window into Spidey's (or Dumbledore's) universe. Dom and I see it for what it is--fiction. Spidey doesn't exist, so if someone really badly didn't want Peter and MJ to be married anymore, they can just go, "Okay, Spidey and Mary Jane never got married. That's it." It's still messy, and not the preferable option, but there you go.

Well it's clear you have absolutely no idea what my point is if that's what you think I'm saying...

I'm not saying comics are a continuum (though for the most part, I'd say they generally are, but obviously that is subject to change), and I'm certainly not saying they act as a "window" into that universe. What I am saying is that just because it's a fictional story that doesn't mean you can completely ignore all the rules of story telling. Haven't you ever heard of the notion that if you pull a single string out of a tapestry, the whole thing will unravel? The same thing applies to a story, fictional or not. If you pull out an event from a story, it is going to 'unravel' other parts of that story unless you cover your bases. You want to make Spidey single again? Ok fine, but you can't just say 'they never got married' and leave it at that. That is incredibly lazy, disrespectful, terrible story telling to just skip out on any explanation (not to mention the impact it has on years worth of other stories), and just because it's a work of fiction is no excuse for such lazy work. You actually do need to explain some things in order to hold the continuity together in the absence of that event. That doesn't mean it has to be some elaborate thing, but it needs to be *something*.

[Shockwave]

I thought you were trying to say something beyond that about editorial mandate not being addressed in story.

[Sparky Prime]

I thought you were trying to say something beyond that about editorial mandate not being addressed in story.

If they aren't addressing an editorial mandate in a story that changed something in that story, then they aren't explaining it to their audience... It's the same thing.

[Shockwave]

But you seem to be making some distinction between editorial/coporate mandate vs. author mandate, otherwise the Dumbledore example would work. Or maybe you did explain it somewhere and I missed it. Much as I've been trying to keep up with this thread, I've only been able to read bits and peices between calls and on breaks at work and a lot of the most recent posts have got away from me (the fact that most of the recent posts have been fairly lengthy hasn't helped this). So I apologize if I'm retreading something that was already covered.