"Back in 2006, I requested a moratorium on the New Gods so that I could build up some foreboding and create anticipation for their return in a new form … instead, the characters were passed around like hepatitis B to practically every writer at DC to toy with as they pleased, which, to be honest, makes it very difficult for me to reintroduce them with any sense of novelty, mystery or grandeur. So in cases like this, where fellow creators have overlooked my carefully established additions to DC continuity or ignored my pleas to hold certain characters in reserve, my intention is to follow the through-line I’ve established in my own work so that there’s at least some long-term consistency."

If someone wants to write and draw a good story that doesn't fit into continuity, they can always do so; nobody complained that 'Monster Society of Evil' didn't fit into Captain Marvel's continuity, did they? No, because Jeff Smith didn't pretend it did. And gosh, it still worked just fine. He wrote and drew the story he wanted to, and so did Darwyn Cooke with New Frontier (even though I still can't stand that one, but it has nothing to do with the continuity) and so does Tom DeFalco with Spider-Girl, and so did Bendis with Ultimate Spider-Man (although it got kind of old for me around issue #60)...

The issue isn't when people write stories that don't fit into continuity. The issue is when people write stories that don't fit into continuity, and insist loudly that they do so fit into continuity and if you notice a problem then shut up, you whiny fanboy, you must not have a life to be paying attention to that and anyway that old story doesn't count anymore.

Think of it this way. The kind of story you're defending isn't Grant Morrison's 'Doom Patrol'. It's John Byrne's 'Doom Patrol' that tried to claim Morrison's 'Doom Patrol' never happened. Which one is the "good story" and which one is the pointless exercise in continuity?

Just let people write and draw good stories.

Riiight. Because I'm the only person who's ever heard of the ARION, LORD OF ATLANTIS series.

Hey, I'm not saying it was a GOOD idea. The Arion writers should have done their research and set the series at a time where, you know, HUMANS ALREADY EXISTED. Though they're hardly the only ones who committed such errors in comics history.

If they want to reboot that, fine by me. But dammit, do it CLEARLY. Do a DC History series with *details* (not the crappy thing they did in 52.) Don't just drop us into stories were we have wonder, "Hey, what happened with...?" I don't buy comics to then have to make up my own explanations (without even getting a No-Prize for it! :-p )

Brian: Umm, I hate to break this to you, but Hypertime is no longer being used. Didio himself said so.

It was a bad idea, anyway. Not that we could have alternate realities, that was cool. But to assume that the main reality changes without warning? That means the freakin' universe is UNSTABLE. Sounds like a menace to me, not something to be celebrated. Not to mention being an excuse for poor writers to ignore continuity at their whim. Which is what has ruined DC's continuity all along. You notice Marvel doesn't suffer these problems (well, with rare exceptions like ONE MORE DAY...)

What the current crop of writers is doing (and I don't intend to single out Morrison, this is endemic to modern superhero comics) isn't "ignoring" stories they don't like, it's actively singling them out for retconning in some sort of attempt to advance their own personal agendas. All of the major retcons of 'Infinite Crisis' were done solely to retcon existing retcons that Geoff Johns (and Morrison and Waid and Rucka, who all had quite a bit of input) thought were "lame". They brought back the multiverse purely because they didn't like the story that undid it, not because they had any vision or purpose for a DC multiverse. The next crop of hot writers will no doubt retcon away that retcon because they were big fans of post-Crisis DC.

You claim that this "Hypertime" approach allows you to ignore continuity when it gets in the way of stories, but I look at the stories and see the opposite--they're ignoring storytelling to focus on whose continuity is going to dominate each narrative.

The issue itself wasn't anything overly special, for mine. It suffered a bit from Morrison's uniquely choppy writing style. But at least we can see what 'Final Crisis' is actually ABOUT now (taking away good's hegemony over evil), which is nice.

But I dunno - it's not like stuff is even changed THAT much.

Most of the stuff is minor, anyways.

That's the way it seemed to me at least. And I say good on him for it.

There’s a large enough pool of writers with a large enough pool of tastes that everyone’s going to think someone’s story is bad and should be ignored.

Exactly.

That's the whole POINT of Hypertime - EVERY story happened - writers just only have to specifically deal with the stuff they want to use.

No one is tied to dumb ideas just because "they happened."

And I love it.

Thank you, Mark Waid and Grant Morrison! What a wonderful idea!!

At that point, what you've got is a story where actions don't have consequences. The New Gods died last month, but Grant Morrison isn't interested in dealing with that story, so they die all over again this month. No follow through equals no consequences equals no drama. Why should I care about anything that happens when next week someone might arbitrarily decide, "No, that chapter of the story was lame and I refuse to acknowledge it"?

All this is an aside to 'Final Crisis' specifically, because I don't feel qualified to debate on that subject (seeing as how I haven't seen more than the first few pages.) But I think that something was lost when COIE made it okay to undo old stories. I don't get my money back for those old comics, why should they get to negate them from continuity?