Continuity or not?

[Kieran_Frost]

Continuity can be flexible but not fluid. If you are retconning things they need to work within boundaries of what’s been established unless it’s egregiously additive or reductive.

Which basically means if you don't agree with the choice/justification you consider it "ignoring continuity." Saying "that character wouldn't do that" doesn't work in comics, if it's in print, it's canon. Period. Meaning THEY WOULD do that. People change, so it's false to say "ten years ago they wouldn't do that"; because people change. Their mentality and priorities and even principles change. Read Pygmalion.

A retcon is contradicting known facts (not motives or opinions), with no justification why it's a contradiction. That is all. Character's acting or thinking differently than they once did is not a retcon.

[Cap808]

Stories without continuity are just lazy. You can tell good stories while keeping up with continuity.

Out of continuity stories used to be called, "What If..."

[Wiccan615]

@Spidercide; I'm not going to quote that response but that was a well written one and was worth reading. TBH I don't keep track of too many current stories and perhaps my idea of "modern" writers might be a bit dated. I didn't know so many writers actually did that? Not explaining character changes is never good, whether it be a retcon or any kind of character development. Again, I personally don't care as much because in most cases, I find retcons to be additive but the ones you listed aren't ones that I read or knew much about (because like I said before, comics continuity is the most convoluted thing) and those were fair cases that reinforce your point.

Structure and consistency DO matter, and I'm definitely not arguing against that, but that doesn't really change the fact that people's mileage may vary in regards to that, especially in relation to fiction. Literature can be analyzed critically but fiction in particular often breaks conventions of what's typical in literature because fiction requires to a large degree, imagination. For some readers it's not hard to imagine, identify or interpret that Character A was ____ all along and they might even enjoy said change and find it additive to the overall narrative, whether it be for the character in question or for the medium itself because some readers appreciate change as a form of breaking conventions. All of that can also be seen as good storytelling for some. That will always be subjective, comic fans wouldn't constantly have these debates if it was otherwise. This is what i meant when I claimed that continuity can be flexible and it can work for people in different ways. I don't think that just changing a character and not following up on it is good. But that bodes true for any type of character arc, and it's not a retcon specific criticism. But that doesn't mean that doing such cant or won't entail new narratives, and to some that might be a good thing.

I'm not saying the quality or consistency of a story can't be critiqued or measured but even then what constitutes that is going to largely be based off your own paradigm. Can you have a critical approach to the consistency of a story? Hell yes. Does that mean you can objectively speak in regards to whether the story is good or not? I would say no because it's unfair to blanket dismiss other people's ideas of what makes a good, compelling fictional narrative. Despite all of that I will concede that the points you bought up are totally fair and I don't agree that writers should take characters with such great legacy and twist them into a pretzel without proper development, that was never really my claim, what I meant to say is just because it doesn't work for me doesn't mean that it can't work for another reader.

[MyriVerse]

Very important tool.
Very lousy straight-jacket.

[Captain Haddock]

I would take an enjoyable story that fudges or ignores older plot points (for example, a lot of Warren Ellis stuff when he writes for Marvel) over a dull one that references dozens of older stories. Which is not to say that characters should act or look different in every single story they feature in, but as long as they are basically recognisable (or being otherwise is a plot point) that's enough for me.

[LordMikel]

But that’s what I’ve been saying.


The situation for Marvel characetrs specifically is that the characters can’t last forever in any kind of creatively healthy state. They were not built to last forever. Maybe the creators wanted that for them (I doubt it for Kirby because he wanted to kill off all Asardians and replace them) but if that’s the case then they should’ve written them differently.


If they established character development and continuity from the start then the characters cannot then transition into a perennial never changing storytelling model. It’s not just a betrayal of the readers and characetrs but it literally doesn’t work. It is like jamming a square into a triangle shaped whole. It doesn’t work.


Spider-Man was meant to grow, change and age. He doesn’t work when you forever stick him at one stage of his life forever. We know this not only from runs in more recent times, examples when we’ve tried to regress to immense backlash and financial failure but also from late 60s an 70s stories where the ‘illusion of change’ was attempted to be permanently applied and quality dropped. In fact that’s a story across most of marvel in the 1970s. But financial and critical success came when the trains got moving again under Shooter’s regime (which wanted to end the Mu notably, a bad decision but not completely off model).



Essentially the Marvel (but not necesarilly DC) characters never work when they are treated purely as brands rather than as vibrant characters.


So yes absolutely allow them to evolve and age.

There was another thread a few months ago, and I wish you had seen that one. Someone basically said that Peter Parker's love life should always fail. The poster wanted a recurring love interest and every few issues, she broke up with Peter, they introduced a new girl, and repeat forever. Never anything more.

[Spidercide]

Very important tool.
Very lousy straight-jacket.

Its not a striahgt jacket. its a boundary. Writers need those thought they often don't know or admit to it

Which basically means if you don't agree with the choice/justification you consider it "ignoring continuity." Saying "that character wouldn't do that" doesn't work in comics, if it's in print, it's canon. Period. Meaning THEY WOULD do that. People change, so it's false to say "ten years ago they wouldn't do that"; because people change. Their mentality and priorities and even principles change. Read Pygmalion.

A retcon is contradicting known facts (not motives or opinions), with no justification why it's a contradiction. That is all. Character's acting or thinking differently than they once did is not a retcon.

Nope.


You can qualify something being more additive or reductive. Case in point Sins past adds development to gwen.


But Gwen is a dead character not relevant to the ongoing series rendering that development for her moot. At the same time it makes her into a horrible person which taints the intentions of the silver age stories and Peter holding her in good will. At the same time it also makes her and Mary jane very contemptable for the neglect of innocent children. The intention of the stories is that we like the characters and want to follow them thus doing that is reductive to them. So it isn’t a good retcon. And that’s not even getting into how it straight up doesn’t fit into continuity due to there not being enough time and also you know, I can pull out pages of my comics and clearly see that woman wasn’t pregnant.


So no it’s not a matter of ‘agreement’


Again no. Canon is dictated by whats on the page with the past holding precedent 99% of the time the 1% being anachronisms and retcons.


The character is defined by their experiences, i.e. the things on the page which then dictate who they are and ho they would act.


That is the entire reason there is the term ‘out of character’. I.e. this is something the character would not do based upon what has been established and defined about them. Spider-Man was out of character in Civil War when he unmasked. His character has been established and defined a certain way and multiple other stories on the printed page have dictated he would not act that way. Thus no he would NOT have unmasked and him doing so is out oc character nonsense.



Yes people change, but people change for reasons in response to stimuli and experiences. It’s not arbitrary but it seems so to outside observers or even when you try to examine yourself. Psychology teaches us though that no, you act in certain ways for certain reasons. Maybe you can’t identify them but they are there all the same.



Fiction though operates differently because fictional characters are expected to behave more consistentl than real people and furthermore if they were to change and act differently reasons for said differences are expected to be provided. Whether it’s a retcon or a change in circumstance or so on, a line of reasons for characters acting egregiously differently is expected. And those reasons have to make sense by the way.



You are NOT allowed to have your character act differently arbitrarily on a whim.



So Spider-Man for decades in multiple stories being unwilling to reveal his secret identity for fear of endangering his loved ones and also having first hand experience of his loved ones being endangered or being hurt by people who knew his secret has been defined and established as someone who would not compromise his identity publically. Thus he wouldn’t do that thus again him doing so in Civil War was nonsense.




When something adding to the ongoing stories egregiously contradicts what was previous established it distrupts or breaks the narrative, creating all sorts of problems. Merely being printed isn’t enough if it egregiously breaks the older stories that it is building upon. Which is why Jenkins’ Lizard story isn’t counted as properly canonical. It so egregiously doesn’t fit and doesn’t make sense but is also self contained enough that it’s essentially been exiled.



If a retcon is claiming Character A acted one way because of Event C instead of Event B then it obviously IS changing motives and opinions. And a retcon by extension can hae ripple effects which would change thoughts, feelings, motives and opinions. E.g. Mary jane knowing Gwen conceived kids with Norman Osborn is naturally going to alter her thoguths, feelings, motives and opinions of multiple events and situations in her life retroactively. She wouldn’t be thinking and feeling the same things when she met Gwen’s extended family as she would have before that retcon and her motives with them change because she is omitting important information.




No. A retcon isany example of retroactive continuity. It doesn’t matter if there is an explanation or not.


That’s what people don’t really get.



There isn’t just ONE type of retcon. A retcon is a tool, like screw driver. And like most tools there are different versions that do different things, like the different heads on a screw driver.



Norman Osborn being alive and not dead is a very different type of retcon next to OMD.



And yes, that can include characters acting and thinking differently. See post-OMD Harry Osborn compared to pre-OMD Harry Osborn.



I apologize for using Spider-Man centric examples for all this but given it’s my field of expertise it’s the stuff which immediately comes to mind.

@Spidercide; I'm not going to quote that response but that was a well written one and was worth reading. TBH I don't keep track of too many current stories and perhaps my idea of "modern" writers might be a bit dated. I didn't know so many writers actually did that? Not explaining character changes is never good, whether it be a retcon or any kind of character development. Again, I personally don't care as much because in most cases, I find retcons to be additive but the ones you listed aren't ones that I read or knew much about (because like I said before, comics continuity is the most convoluted thing) and those were fair cases that reinforce your point.

Structure and consistency DO matter, and I'm definitely not arguing against that, but that doesn't really change the fact that people's mileage may vary in regards to that, especially in relation to fiction. Literature can be analyzed critically but fiction in particular often breaks conventions of what's typical in literature because fiction requires to a large degree, imagination. For some readers it's not hard to imagine, identify or interpret that Character A was ____ all along and they might even enjoy said change and find it additive to the overall narrative, whether it be for the character in question or for the medium itself because some readers appreciate change as a form of breaking conventions. All of that can also be seen as good storytelling for some. That will always be subjective, comic fans wouldn't constantly have these debates if it was otherwise. This is what i meant when I claimed that continuity can be flexible and it can work for people in different ways. I don't think that just changing a character and not following up on it is good. But that bodes true for any type of character arc, and it's not a retcon specific criticism. But that doesn't mean that doing such cant or won't entail new narratives, and to some that might be a good thing.

I'm not saying the quality or consistency of a story can't be critiqued or measured but even then what constitutes that is going to largely be based off your own paradigm. Can you have a critical approach to the consistency of a story? Hell yes. Does that mean you can objectively speak in regards to whether the story is good or not? I would say no because it's unfair to blanket dismiss other people's ideas of what makes a good, compelling fictional narrative. Despite all of that I will concede that the points you bought up are totally fair and I don't agree that writers should take characters with such great legacy and twist them into a pretzel without proper development, that was never really my claim, what I meant to say is just because it doesn't work for me doesn't mean that it can't work for another reader.

The thing with retcons or a lot of things in life is that we have to take them by a case-by-case basis.


There are people who broadbush things way too much (see a lot of stuff from the most recent presidential election). I know there are people who straight hate retcons on principle. I don’t. they are a tool and like any tool their worth depends upon the craftsman who is using them.

[Spidercide]

The thing with retcons or a lot of things in life is that we have to take them by a case-by-case basis.


There are people who broadbush things way too much (see a lot of stuff from the most recent presidential election). I know there are people who straight hate retcons on principle. I don’t. they are a tool and like any tool their worth depends upon the craftsman who is using them.


Geoff Johns retconned Emerald twilight to great effect. DeFalco retconned Mary Jane to great effect. The Hulk and the nature of his different incarnations are the products of retcons.


But the sum result of those things is obviously different compared to something like One More Day, the Crossing or identity Crisis.


Comics continuity is easier to digest when you break it down character by character or series by series chronologically, although more minor characters are more inconsistent. Like the X-Men continuity up until at least the 90s (and even then) it doesn’t honestly NOT make sense it’sjust complicated is all. Some people knowledgable of the lore though can explain it but a good comic would be able to work within the established stories but not need to explain everything to you.


Like I could ick up random 90s X-Men comics with little difficulty because of how they were written and enjoy them despite a lack of knowledge. I did that with the Clone Saga too.


So really its about how you manage continuity more than anythimg.




Mileage can vary in regards to personal enjoyment. But not as much in regards to broader standards.


E.g. The Godfather is a movie you can personally not enjoy but is ultimately a very well crafted piece of storytelling.


You can even use the Marvel movies as an example of this. The Winter Soldier is a great movie for various reasons but on a storytelling level that stems from balancing characters and plot threads in a tight and consistent manner. The tone is set early on in the movie exemplifying that this is an action movie that will have humour but also will have a fair amount of seriousness and grit about it, centred upon the personal journey of this one man who’s internal dilemma is that he is a man out of time trying to do the best he can in his new situation. You get all of that within the first scene or two of the movie. Perfect set up. Perfect execution.


But then you look at something like Avengers Assemble. You can again break that down structurally to how and why it succeeds as a movie. It gives you a refresher on all the characetrs and plot points from the last 5 films I that are necessary for you to understand and enjoy this one. Again. That’s continuity management. What we saw in that movie was a comic come to life, except it wasn’t a modern comic but an older one.


As for literature fiction predates literature. Modern storytelling as a craft was pioneered in ancient Greece when they were making plays. They were the first to establish the rules and conventions of storytelling and discovered that the three act structure is most of the time the best form of that storytelling. In fact the 3 act structure is what the human mind, even on a bio-chemical level, finds most stimulating for storytelling. You will note that many things in human society revolve around or come in threes. For whatever reason that number resonates with us as a species.



That was a tangent but my point is literature stemming from imagination doesn’t render it above critical analysis. Because literature is just another from of fiction and the Ancient Greeks along with pioneering storytelling as a craft pioneered storytelling criticism.



“…It is obvious that the solutions of plots too should come about as a result of the plot itself, and not from a contrivance…”



That was written by Aristotle one of THE great philosophers of his age in approximately 335 BC! And it’s as true today as it was then.


So critical analysis of a story really doesn’t matter on the medium and it isn’t merely based upon personal paradigms. Like trying to make a story more layered or psychologically rich isn’t just MY paradigm it’s a paradigm for all storytelling if you are doing anything other than a comedy or info dump story. That’s because the world and us humans are like that and are reading this with the intention of being entertined which entails attempting to be engrossed in the world and connecting with the charcters. Thus the more like us they are the better. That’s an objective paradigm and it’s even provable by virtue of the success Marvel in the 1960s garnered when they deliberately tried to make sueprheroes more like real people. It wasn’t just that they broke convention because DC consequently tried doing that and also found success and virtually all adaptations of the characters since then have tried making them real and multifaceted to varying degrees. It’s not a break in convention which sold that that it’s the fact that human beings are naturally just going to gravitate towards that stuff. Because we recognize more of ourselves in those works.


Essentially there is a higher form of ‘this is good and this is bad’ even if it takes a while and debate to come to the conclusion. Some work is confusing and can’t give you a clearer answer. But most of the time comics and movies don’t, mostly because with no insult to them, they aren’t trying to be AS multifaceted or AS layered as other works of fiction. Because they have comparatively less to them critically analysing them can often yield clearer answers.


Not to say something more layered can’t also yield you a clearer answer. Watchmen is maybe the greatest fiction comic book story to come out of America. It’s an immaculate work for too meany reasons than I could list right now, but among them is the fact that it presents multiple points of views ‘right’. Dr manhatten, Silk Spectre, Nite Owl, Ozmandias, etc all are given their points of view and the comic doesn’t give away which one, if any, the author is siding with. You make up your own mind.



It’s a technique which George R. R. Martin uses in his A Song of Ice and Fire novels such as Game of Thrones.



With retcons you can quantify how good or bad they are based upon how well they fit and how much they add and take away. Some readers might find it hard to believe something but that doesn’t = it is a bad retcon. Norman Osborn being alive is something a lot of readers at the time hated and didn’t accept but when explained it fit in very well with the narrative and actually added egregiously more than it took away. And not just on a subjective level of some people liking it. Objectively it gave more back than it took away.



Breaking conventions being good or bad again is a case by case basis. Some conventions cannot and should not be broken or at least not in certain ways.



There is a world of objective differences between breaking convention and allowing Gwen Stacy to die and breaking convention and revealing Spider-Man’s identity to the world at large or having the government enforce super human registration on the populace.



One convention opens up doors and storytelling opportunities whilst the other ones open up doors in the short term whilst closing bigger more important ones in the long term, debilitating the long term functionality of the series or characters. Now that’s not strictly speaking a retcon but it addresses your point about accepting Character A being one thing or another and the change being additive or reductive.

[Spidercide]

For example if Gwen Stacy can die then anyone can die. Tension is raised and danger more possible as in the real world. It allows for greater emotional exploration on the theme of loss or fear of loss and danger and personal cost, all universal human experiences allowing for greater empathy and connection between readers and characters. Spider-Man being unmasked makes destroys renders Spider-man unable to be a relatively normal person. He is no longer a relatively normal guy who happens to be a super hero. Now he’s a celebrity and lives a life few if any readers can understand or connect with. Which would be fine if that was part of the intention and core concept of the character as it was with Fantastic Four. But it wasn’t. For Spider-Man he was always supposed to be down to Earth and normal. Many people liked the unmasking as it was new. A break in convention. But it just goes to prove how short sighted novelty can be. To say nothing of how out of character it was and how it fundamentally upended the Spider-Man series to the point where NOTHING could really be the same. Like after Gwen Spider-Man could still be a normal guy, work a job taking picture,s go to school, look after Aunt May, etc. Every relationship in his life would be altered in ways almost or entirely beyond recognition by the unmasking. A case of changing the broom head and broom handle to the point where you’ve lost the broom. There is notion today of chasing novelty at any expense but something like Civil War proved the point about how short sighted that really is.



Now sure people can like or dislike various developments from retcons subjectively. I know many people who love Eddie brock lethal protector which was also a retcon. But if the retcons or inconsistiencies under consideration are unhealthy for the franchise in the long or short term, just don’t do them or else course correct them. Abrams kind of did that with the Force Awakens, trying to course correct the universe after the prequels despite there being a generation which loved those. Hell DC Rebirth attempted to course correct their whole universe after a line wide set of retcons.



See again it’s not an idea based thing. In critical analysis you don’t just say this is good or bad. You have to prove the point by citing examples as supporting evidence and building a case for it.


E.g. if I was to take what I said up top about the Winter Soldier I could further support some of my points by citing specifically the jogging scene where Steve makes a list of things he needs to research for the modern day. This proves that he is a man out of time but also someone trying to make the best out of the situation. That in turn supports the idea of him being heroic as he isn’t living in despair which is a good thing because the intention of the movie is to be a superhero movie thus the protagonist should be heroic. Thus that aspect of the movie is not good merely in my opinion but on a more objective level. Because there is literally evidence to support it being good, to prove the point. And I can say all that but then also turn around and say I liked First Avenger or Avengers Assemble a lot more than Winter Solder despite them probably not being as good films overall.

New Marvel is here to stay.

I tend to think that "Age of Ultron" was meant as set up for "Secret Wars". But, if that was the case, Hickman clearly ignored it.

As long as I can get one or two series like "the Vison" or "the Ultimates", it is all good.




Because comics are meta now. And, it does not effect 90% of what Marvel publishes.

Comics shouldn't be meta to this degree.

Doing that undermines the whole point of these stories. Your supposed to become emotionally invested and engrossed in the stories. If you just see the actors as acting and the sets as sets and the props as props as opposed to buying into the world and not seeing the man behind the curtain there is no point to the exercise.

Not that it matters in this case because the world isn't a imaginary fabrication. it's 616 picking up where it left off.

There was another thread a few months ago, and I wish you had seen that one. Someone basically said that Peter Parker's love life should always fail. The poster wanted a recurring love interest and every few issues, she broke up with Peter, they introduced a new girl, and repeat forever. Never anything more.

That is a very poor and damagaing philosophy for the Spider-Man character and franchise.



It renders his love life irreelevent and doomed to fail. That is not only depressing but boring and futile. If that was the case it’d be better that new women be introduced to Peter’s life and he form platonic relationships with them or else the time and energy spent on developing these entirely pointless relationships instead be channelled into developing pre-existing characters or fleshing out action scenes or something which actually serves a point.



At the same time that philosophy breaks the inhernet concept of Spdier-Man as the everyman and is also categorically NOT the original intention of the character as established by Stan lee. Whilst he wanted Spider-Man originally to be wit gwen (he’s changed his mind about that since then) Stan ALWAYS wanted Spider-Man to wind up with someone permanently at some point.



Also frankly I find the notion of Spider-Man constantly trying and failing to find love to be immature, sexist and really insulting. Not to mention who would care about these women? Would anyone care about them half as much as Gwen, Felicia or MJ or even Betty brant? No because you’d know they mean nothing.






There was another thread a few months ago, and I wish you had seen that one. Someone basically said that Peter Parker's love life should always fail. The poster wanted a recurring love interest and every few issues, she broke up with Peter, they introduced a new girl, and repeat forever. Never anything more.

[Wiccan615]

Once again, a very well written response Spidercide, very thought provoking. And yes I do agree that retcons are not universally the same, they must be looked at case by case.

And yes of course fiction can be critically analyzed, most things in life can. Critical analysis in and of itself is characterized by criticisms based off evaluation and judgement. Critical analysis in and of itself is subjective and it's approaches will vary especially with fiction because so much of it is characterized by personal tastes, which are cultivated by broader experiences and expectations. And of course structure and consistency fall into it and play a massively important role. However; A film can be wonderfully crafted and greatly structured, but does that mean that it will be an objectively good film? Also, is there truly one idea of what makes a structured narrative? We might respond in a particular matter in regards to our brain in response to stories with a specific structure, but objectively speaking does that mean I will love a well structured story more so than a poorly structured story that resonates with me? What if the poorly structured story ends up having more narrative value in the long term? I'm not asking you to answer these questions, you already have answered them in a meaningful way, and I'm not saying that what you're saying is dismissing these questions but I don't personally agree that there's an objective, one size fits all paradigm when it comes to fictional narratives. This is why I don't feel like there really is an objective approach of what works vs what doesn't, it will always be based off your own ideas and expectations of what makes a good narrative, and what that means is largely subjective. How structure and constitency fit into that will also play a role of course, and those merits can and should be critically analyzed.

One persons ideas of what's going to enhance the long term narrative of a story may not be universal, and I wouldn't completely dismiss new ideas or revisions as novelty. What constitutes novelty for its own sake might perhaps be a highly relatable and interesting narrative to another reader. Some might find Peter Parker's narratives less limiting because he's an out superhero instead of needing to hide his alter ego, and I wouldn't say that they are objectively wrong for having such an opinion and that there isn't a bunch of storytelling potential there. But like you said; it has to be analyzed in a case by case basis and it will always depend on the craftsmen and what the story adds or takes away in terms of the overarching narrative. Even then though, I do not believe we can make objective claims in regards to wherther or not the story is good because again, that has to do with many, many more personal variables that go beyond structure and consistency.

TLDR; I actually agree with you in terms of approaching retcons on a case by case basis, author craftsmanship and critical analysis, the value of it and the importance of it for the medium but I don't think that's all there is when it comes to what makes a good fictional narrative because that will be determined by a ton of variables that vary depending on the reader. And even critical analysis can be affected by, or even limited by expectations and experiences in regards to fiction because that is how we identify with it inherently.