It’s a pretty divisive word in comics. In my experience comics fans take it very seriously, and feel very strongly about it. Wherever the age-old continuity debate rears its head, you’ll find raised voices and heightened snark in Internet posts. Is continuity the best thing that ever happened to comics, or the worst? Does continuity strangle the creative life out of stories, or is it the very thing that gives them their long-term value?
Well, like most either/or proposition, the answer is neither. And both. Dividing the sides of the argument that way is inherently false. To me, the truth lies in the nebulous area between here and there. I love continuity very much, and think it is one of the most valuable things about our comics. I also think that it is given too much importance and can strangle stories.
In truth, my intellectual spider-sense went off about this issue for the precise reason that I have argued so vehemently on both sides of the argument. I remember reading interviews with writers who I’d felt had neglected some treasured point of continuity, and seeing them say that they hated continuity because it stifled creativity. I was incensed, and immediately had tons of examples at my fingertips showing how a writer could write a story that resonates with the established continuity instead of in conflict with it. On the other hand, I’ve also been on the other side, and have seen how in some people’s minds, details of a story from 10, 20, even 30 years before can get in the way of a good story. I look at the state of super hero comics today, and I see a concern for continuity that I think gets in the way of making comics the best they can be. Now, I tend not to think of myself as a raging hypocrite, so I thought there must be something else going on here than a simple A/B division. And after some thought, I came to a few conclusions.
Continuity should be descriptive, not prescriptive. It’s a concept I picked up from studying linguistics. There is an idea that the study of linguistics is descriptive in nature, not prescriptive*. It should describe how language works in practice, not prescribe rules and slap people on the wrist if they don’t talk good. Well, I think continuity should be the same. Continuity should be something that results from telling multiple stories about the same characters, not a paddle waiting to spank you if you don’t stay in the lines.
Now, don’t pile on me yet. I know it sounds like I am attacking continuity, but I’m really not. I love it. I am a continuity buff, I really am. Let me try to explain a bit more.
Think about how continuity formed in comics. People kept writing comics about the same characters, and began crossing over the characters from one comic to the next. This mythical continuity spider magically formed in the web of tales. The continuity was shaped by the stories, and when lots of stories touch on the same points, it reinforces that shape. But the stories make the continuity, not vice versa. There have been innumerable times in the past when one story contradicted another—and many of the offending stories are now considered part of the untouchable canon.
Whenever the “prescriptive” use of continuity is criticized, the most common defense I’ve seen is to point out that without continuity, there would be complete chaos. Spider-Man could be a brown-haired married father-to-be named Peter in one issue, and a blond-haired single dude named Ben the next.** If a monster is established as grey, we should expect he’s not going to be green the next issue with no explanation. Ok, ok… joke examples aside, wanting characters to have the same names from one issue to the next is wanting a good, consistent writer. It’s common sense, not continuity. But with over 40 years on most of Marvel’s heroes, being a stickler for following continuity precisely to the letter won’t help anyone.
For example, Bendis outing Daredevil was a great story that led to an intriguing status quo. But… any longtime Daredevil readers out there? The exact same story setup happened years ago.*** A reporter figured out that Matt was Daredevil and put it on the front page of the paper. But you know what? It was a ONE-ISSUE story. Matt did some simple tricks, and got them to take it back, no fuss, no muss. Now, I have a feeling if a new writer came on Daredevil tomorrow and tossed off five pages where Matt solves that pesky Daredevil rumor, fans might be upset. After all, Bendis and Brubaker have established a continuity where it is not as simple as putting someone in the Daredevil costume and acting really blind. But the old story established that it IS that simple! The continuity that “wins” and becomes the accepted continuity forms after the stories are set in place, and is as fluid as any group idea, ebbing and flowing day by day.
Now, my point is not to say that all those facts should be thrown out. I am not advocating that we start an arc of Hulk where he is enrolling in college as a freshman and just let posterity sort things out. The character and the concept need to be consistent. We should not introduce Bruce Banner’s long lost dad when clearly, it only takes a tiny bit of research to find that he’s been in the comics, and he’s dead.**** I’m just saying that if some of the details are not all perfect, it’s ok. If Doc Ock fights Mister Fantastic and neither of them mention that Octavius consulted on Sue’s pregnancy, it doesn’t invalidate the story. The Marvel Universe is elastic enough to allow for it. Maybe Doc Ock lost that memory because when he died and was resurrected by The Hand's ninja magic, the computer chip that held the backup of his memories had a glitch in that sector. And perhaps Reed lost that memory when his mutant son removed him from reality and rebooted his existence in a pocket universe, before restoring him a year later. And if in a later story, Reed and Ock do mention it? Then perhaps when Wanda Maximoff altered and re-altered all of reality around her making her father emperor of the world, she restored their memories to their original states.
One of the places I learned this more laissez-faire approach to continuity was from Doctor Who. There are over 30 seasons of that show, and there has been more than one glaring contradiction in that time. But the Doctor Who continuity buffs? They have fun with it. I bought a book called The Discontinuity Guide, in which they document these inconsistencies and come up with theories as to how they can all make sense.***** Some of them are pretty elaborate. But that is part of the fun of continuity. That’s why I consider myself a continuity buff—I have fun thinking about continuity. Not everyone needs to be a continuity buff—and not everyone needs to know the 40+ year history of every character they read. But if you’re a nut, like me… be a nut because you enjoy it, not as an excuse to complain.
And yes, I do know that Marvel has made use of this idea before. When I was growing up, that was how you earned a No-Prize, by coming up with an in-world explanation for a continuity mistake. And you know what? It was fun! Heck, it made me WANT to find problems, just so I could solve them!
So… all this serves as an introduction to something I mentioned in my very first blog entry. I want to do a recurring segment here in the White Pages called “Continuity Watch.” The idea is that people can send in continuity “problems,” the more glaring the better, and I will do my best to make sense of them. I am working on the first installment right now—I’ve pulled old issues of Busiek’s AVENGERS and AMAZING ADVENTURES from the Marvel library to do some research. I’ll try to have it ready for Monday.
Be seeing you!
Jordan D. White
* I wish I could credit whose idea this was and where it came from, but I did not study linguisitics for long, and I no longer have the textbooks.
** Clone Saga reference! BAM! Where my Ben Reilly fans at?
*** I wish I could give you an issue number. I do consider myself a continuity buff, but issue numbers are something that never really stick with me. It was in the 1990's though, I believe.
**** But even if we DID do that, are you telling me you cannot think of ONE in-world explanation for how that could be possible?
***** One of the authors of said book? CAPTAIN BRITAIN's own Paul Cornell.
When continuity matters I compliment you on your attitude toward continuity, Mr. White. If a mistake in continuity doesn’t derail a story’s plot, characterization, or theme, there’s no reason to think that it’s a serious mistake; rather, it’s a mere glitch, like scene-to-scene continuity mistakes in movies.
Unfortunately, there are several recent, continuing examples of mistakes in continuity which have virtually destroyed stories and ongoing storylines. One prime example is the ongoing mischaracterization of Dr. Strange; the character readers have been seeing, who relies (relied) on intricate hand motions and vocal gibberish for spells, is not the Strange who used easily understood invocations and not gestures. There’s also the mischaracterization re his personality.
There are other serious examples, but detailing them would get ugly. The worst thing about the recent mischaracterizations is that they seem to happen because the writers don’t understand the subject matter and the editor doesn’t care, or doesn’t even notice. Simply getting a comic book published on schedule isn’t a praiseworthy accomplishment. The material within has to be worth publishing.
SRS
Posted by Steven R. Stahl on 2009-03-26 12:23:52
Continuity violations Rather than go into detail about continuity violations and how they ruined characters and storylines, I’ll just say that the two worst examples at Marvel that I know of involve the Scarlet Witch and Dr. Strange. In “Avengers Disassembled,” Wanda’s pregnancy and power were handled badly; the character’s personality was ruined. The mishandling of Dr. Strange, from WORLD WAR HULK #3 through NEW AVENGERS ANNUAL #2, to the present, is an ongoing case of mischaracterization and discontinuities involving magic in the Marvel universe.
All of the continuity mistakes involving the two characters were avoidable. Avoiding them wouldn’t have prevented doing good stories with the characters. If anyone at Marvel could justify the treatments of the characters, in terms of editorial policies and standards, I’d be grateful and quit complaining -- but I don’t think that justification is possible. Saying that an issue sold well, so we’ll go with it, is a post-publication rationalization that can’t serve as the basis for any policy.
SRS
Posted by Steven R. Stahl on 2009-03-27 12:18:12
Array
Enter a response to this blog post:
About this blog: Jordan loves reading comics, and he loves thinking about them way too much. Super Hero morality, quirks of continuity, and the daily grind of putting out funnybooks… it’s all fair game.
About the author: Jordan D. White is an assistant editor at Marvel. In his free time, he reads way too many comics. Seriously.
save this link
