I don't think the fans demand that the continuity be there, per se.

I think there is a serious disconnect between what the publishers think readers want, and what the reading audience (not comics fans - the READING AUDIENCE) wants.

The reading audience - be it for comics, novels, what have you - wants a self-contained story that isn't always brand name (be it character property or creator), that is priced affordably and is a one-time purchase. Readers are sick of media tie ins, sick of never ending sagas or book after book featuring the same character(s) by the same author (What - don't you know how to write anything else, Author X?). They want something "new"* to their experience that they can't find anywhere else.

* ("New" being subjective to that person, of course.)

And sadly, none of the mainstream entertainment industries - be it film, tv, book publishers or the comics industry - seemingly want to provide that.

Hence, the inevitable jadedness and disdain for all of it.

Sad, but true.

Even sadder, is the fact that there is so much good stuff out there, and that the reading audience can't find it - oft times we don't even know it exists. Some of the reason for that in part because we've been bombarded with so much crap from the mainstream media, that we've programmed ourselves to tune it all out.

I don't think it's everybody. I think it's mostly me. I fear for what superheroes from the big two are turning into, and the way that comics by-fans-for-fans has insured they are becoming actively hostile to ever opening up a new audience. I'm the one that's always snarking off about that. The other guys all blame Geoff Johns.

But you are on. I only do one a week anyway, but for you, this coming Friday, I will talk about new work from Geoff Johns I like a lot.

Well, not JUST for you. My wife thinks I'm getting a bit too crabby lately in the column too. It's very possible. Crabby is my natural condition. NOT being crabby takes a little effort.

"From what I understand, the problem with Priest book is less obsession with continuity as much as a real bad editorial call, that decide they need to do a Hal Jordan book using the current status quo around the time. I can see how one might think this is the same thing, but it isn’t. This has more to do with lack of editorial vision (by an editor that is probably too obsessed with continuity, I guess). Even if they really believe that those books should take place in the usual Green Lantern continuity, I think it’s pretty obvious that the only way to do one centered in Hal Jordan would be to set it in the past, by starting with Hal/Spectre they obviously shot themselves in the foot from the beginning."

But a difference that doesn't MAKE a difference doesn't really count, you know?

It's not a question of snootiness. I own and enjoy lots of mainstream Marvel and DC books, I'm probably the biggest Marvel and DC devotee that writes for the blog. I had no problem keeping up with the story as published and I enjoyed the first two books okay. That's not the point.

The point was that I was baffled at WHY the third book was done that way. It doesn't make good economic sense. It's certainly not snobbery to make the judgement that they shouldn't be writing for guys like me, particularly in a NOVEL meant to reach a mass audience in a BOOKSTORE. This is a great opportunity to just tell a straight-ahead adventure story and introduce new readers to the world and the characters, and the decision was made to NOT do that, to instead do one so thoroughly bogged down in DCU lore that the story practically got buried.

So Filipe's got a good point. He's bird-dogged the genuine complaint, except I have to think that the reasoning behind that decision has something to do with placating a fan market that they are worried about losing. Why else do it? Who's a continuity-obsessed story for, if NOT the hardcore fans? And all the OTHER continuity-driven stories out there? Who are THOSE for?

I really do think Marvel and DC are producing superhero books that are largely by and for a hardcore fan market, and that it has reached the point where it undercuts the entertainment value of telling a story in the first place. Now you tell me, if that's not an effort to appease a hardcore base than what the hell IS it? How do you get to a place where that's what your main business is if it's NOT selling?

It's all very well for readers here to grumble that "I'M not one of those guys, Greg, don't bitch at ME about it." But that's missing the point. I AM one of those guys, I'm steeped in the history of superhero comics, I have an embarrassing amount of trivia I carry around in my head. But I'm not the audience they should be going after, because that hurts the story.

So if you're NOT one of those folks demanding that your hardcore fan needs be catered to, good on you, you're not the problem. But those fans must be out there, because A) they keep doing books like that and B) those books must sell or they would stop doing them, you know?

You're just not gonna like this site, then. That's all. Which isn't a big deal or anything. It isn't going to be everyone's cuppa tea.

Exactly. I'll never understand how people can get upset with critics for criticizing. That's the whole point.

The location of Dr. Watson's war injury is a trivial bit of continuity; it doesn't impact any of the Sherlock Holmes stories. Obsessing over that kind of thing is a bit odd.

Hal Jordan as the Spectre is a major character development that has tremendous impact on stories. Why shouldn't fans and creators take serious notice? Why does this rate as "scary obsessive" and not needed consistency? What would be considered needed consistency, if not this?

I'm not even in agreement with K, but I just want to point out that you totally missed his point. He didn't say they put an unbearable social stigma on him. He said that no matter how superior comic elitists may act for not purchasing certain comics, they should get over themselves in the eyes of the noncomics fan they're all equally geeky, whether they're reading Grant Morrison or Geoff Johns.

If reading comics is so horrible that you feel it puts an unbearable social stigma upon you, don't read them, then.

T: Bill, that “Geoff Johns” cheap shot directed toward RAB was really unnecessary.

Of course it was. Still true, though.

Is my beret showing?

because they hate America.

Why isn't their room for both? Does everything have to be an agreeable lovefest? There are plenty of positive reviews here, and when there is criticism here it's constructive and fully explained. I like the blog you pointed out but I like what these guys do too. I don't think they should accept ANY challenge to be more "positive" and sunshiney. Personally I'd never even make such a demand on a blog to change their style to what I as an individual think is superior, it's kind of audacious and holier-than-thou. I'd just quit reading said blog.

Hatcher undermines his own argument about blaming the fans for Priest's obsessive-compulsive continuity writing by citing all the examples of how fans are willing to accept out-of-continuity alternate universes. If he himself admits that fans can accept a bunch of different versions of X-men, Spider-Man, Bruce Timm cartoons, Ultimate comics, etc., how can he then come to the conclusion that they're too close-minded to accept works that buck continuity? If anything, the fault lies with the editors and comic writers who, despite having evidence that fans will buy good work even if it's outside continuity, still feel the need to obsess over continuity anyway. Christopher Priest writes confusing, continuity obsessed work because he's a confusing, continuity-obsessed writer, not because the fans made him that way. Quesada and Jemas created a continuity-bucking and cutting-edge alternate Universe because they are continuity-bucking and cutting edge comic executives.

Fans have proven their flexibility. If Didio, Priest and Johns can't match that flexibility, it's their own fault.

http://the-isb.blogspot.com/

i read HIS blog, and he can take a comic (lame or not) and seem to enjoy the hell out of it. sure, most of his reviews are old ones but every once in a while he will talk about a recent one that tickled him. the point is, despite the hyperbole (itself being hyperbolic its so bad) he manages to find a lot of fun and amusement and doesnt often whip out complaints about continutity or such. when he does its sometimes a one or two second aside, and sometimes an excuse to say something smarmy but amusing.

as compared to a lot of what ive read HERE of late, where it just tends to fall flat. sometimes the article doesnt even truly seem to talk about a comic but instead falls to complaining in the same way, about the same stuff, every time. saying something once in a while may be okay, but quit being so negative about it. so godawfully negative. it reminds me of the nerds that stand down on the "indie" side of the comic shop and try to look down on everyone else as if they are somehow better. nevermind that they are standing in a comic shop and the second they set foot out that door, all they are is another utter dork.

as i said, sometimes you guys are good. sometimes you guys just seem to be miserable. comic BLOGS should be good, too. and when the writers HERE seem to quit caring about actually paying attention to that and fall back to mostly complaining (easy, cheap writing) then i feel it needs to be pointed out too.

so challenge: FOR A SOLID WEEK why dont you only write about issues that have made you happy. im not saying you cant point out some flaws in the works, otherwise you wouldnt be reviewing, but running PR. just pick some of the things that you have found to be worthwhile and point them out. after all this seems to be the premise of the blog to begin with. as opposed to only picking out the things that are horrible. and EXTRA challenge if you can actually dig up some stuff from the big two that you think deserve praise and tell us why. i keep seeing asides to some books in places (like Manhunter for example, or Thing) simply saying "this is good, please read it so it doesnt get cancelled" with NO FURTHER EXPLANATION WHY. and you know what? i look at those books and have zero interest in them. so stuff like that on the net doesnt really do much to help encourage me to read them.

i realise that it IS fairly common that you guys do point out good stuff. but i see more bad on here than not. so just spend a week. see if just one writer focusing on the good doesnt make it makes a better blog.