Comments on: Comics Should Be Good Mailbag for 12/17

By: DanCJ

DanCJ — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 10:28:22 +0000

Not saying that I agree with his definition (as I donâ€™t in this particular instance), but I believe Davidâ€™s position is that a retcon is telling a story specifically to explain away a previous story.

You might be right, but that’s completely not what David actually said.

I disagree, of course, but I DO agree with David that the term retcon probably is misused a lot to refer to new information that is NOT contradictory of past information (like Batman and Zatanna being childhood friends – no one ever said they WERENâ€™T, so it wouldnâ€™t be a retcon, but Iâ€™m sure it is referred to as a retcon often)

I could go wither way on this. As I understand it (and I read this on the internet so it must be true) the original time the term was used was to describe Alan Moore’s revelations about Swamp Things true nature in The Anatomy Lesson. This of course didn’t actually contradict anything that had previously been shown (though it did contradict what was previously believed)

By: Brian Cronin

Brian Cronin — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 16:19:00 +0000

Not saying that I agree with his definition (as I don’t in this particular instance), but I believe David’s position is that a retcon is telling a story specifically to explain away a previous story.

Like David’s example, a retcon would be having a story saying “that guy who died wasn’t really killed by Batman, it was heart failure!” or “that gun Batman used had blanks” or something like that. Not simply saying Batman never uses a gun even though he just did a few issues earlier.

I disagree, of course, but I DO agree with David that the term retcon probably is misused a lot to refer to new information that is NOT contradictory of past information (like Batman and Zatanna being childhood friends – no one ever said they WEREN’T, so it wouldn’t be a retcon, but I’m sure it is referred to as a retcon often).

By: DanCJ

DanCJ — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 16:10:19 +0000

â€¦stating that Batman never uses a gun when he has been previously (heck, recently) depicted doing exactly that is negating that previous depiction and changing the continuity. So by your own definition itâ€™s a retcon.

Just what I was going to say

By: Blackjak

Blackjak — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 08:54:03 +0000

There is a real case of two artists with similar names working either side of the pond…

Flint Henry and Henry Flint…

By: SKFK

SKFK — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 05:16:16 +0000

The Comic Book Heroes has one sidenote that I always wanted to submit as a potential Comic Book Legends entry. According to the book, a British comic book writer happened to have the same name as a famous American author: Henry James. So when he began working with American publishers, he chose to use a pen name instead of his real one. His pen name? Jamie Delano.

As far as I can tell, Jamie Delano is his real name, and he’s been published under that name for many years before he became known in the US. So why did Jones and Jacobs put it in the book? Were they fooled by someone else, or did they put it in the book as some kind of a joke?

By: Mike Loughlin

Mike Loughlin — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 00:29:34 +0000

The Jones/ Jacobs book is great, but I do remember reading that it contained minor factual errors. I like the tone of the book, however; the authors love comics but pull no punches when talking about the dire periods. I would love to read their take on the last 12 years.

By: davidwynne

davidwynne — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 22:31:42 +0000

Wow, people are slating Travis Charest as supposedly epitomising the worst of the nineties now? Sheesh.

David- â€œRetconâ€ requires that something be negated or otherwise changed.

…stating that Batman never uses a gun when he has been previously (heck, recently) depicted doing exactly that is negating that previous depiction and changing the continuity. So by your own definition it’s a retcon.

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 22:23:01 +0000

Tony Isabella has occasionally written short behind-the-scenes bits about Marvel during his time there in the ’70s in Comics Buyer’s Guide.

And thanks for the plug, Brian.

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:24:34 +0000

I’ll second Matt’s call for a behind-the-scenes history of that 70s/80s period, but in the meantime I’d like to track down a copy of the Jones/Jacobs book– looks great!

By: Apodaca

Apodaca — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:15:35 +0000

“â€œRetconâ€ requires that something be negated or otherwised change.”

I don’t believe that’s true, actually. The term stands for ‘retroactive continuity’, meaning any bit of continuity inserted into the history of a story at a later date. Sometimes that’s a change, and sometimes it’s an elabloration.

By: Andrew Collins

Andrew Collins — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:21:40 +0000

To Eric, I would also add he could check out BACK ISSUE magazine that is published by TwoMorrows and edited by Michael Eury. It’s whole focus is on the comics of the 70′s and 80′s. They just did a fantastic tribute issue to Steve Gerber. Highly recommended.

By: Thok

Thok — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:13:09 +0000

I feel like you should have mentioned that there are retcons that predate comics. For example there’s the fairly famous Sherlock Homes retcon (the Empty House retcons the ending of the Final Problem.)

By: David

David — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:48:05 +0000

Sorry if this comes off a little harsh, but misuse of the term “retcon” is one of my bigger pet peeves. Revealing something previously unknown does not retroactively affect continuity. Saying Batman does not and will not use guns, does not negate or otherwise change what has previously been revealed. Retroactive continuity would be e.g. Roy Thomas writing a flashback to the earlier scene revealing that no gun existed and the villain instead died from heart failure. Each time something is revealed like, again e.g., Storm’s mother was the last in a long line of hereditary African mystics, many fans talk about how this retcon is wrong. But, nothing has been changed; it’s just that something we never knew before has been added. “Retcon” requires that something be negated or otherwise changed.

By: Bill Reed

Bill Reed — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:31:15 +0000

The Jones/Jacobs book is an excellent text, yes. Highly recommended!

By: Cass

Cass — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:03:16 +0000

All those lines on his face and neck, Superman really is 70 years old.

By: jazzbo

jazzbo — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:44:32 +0000

I have that book but haven’t gotten around to reading it yet. I’ll have to move it closer to the top of my To Read pile.

By: b_rad

b_rad — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:30:57 +0000

Wow, the graphic for that book really brings back the artistic nightmare that was mainstream comics in the late 80′s and early 90′s. Bad anatomy, plenty of “fuss lines” and women who all have the same body and face with only hair colour and style to differentiate them. Although the sad artwork was nothing compared to the so-called writing at the time. Whatever problems the industry has today is nothing compared to this all-time low period of the industry.

By: Matt Bird

Matt Bird — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:38:14 +0000

And why is Spider-Man wearing clown shoes? Wait a minute, that’s not Spider-Man… …That’s Sideshow Bob!

By: Matt Bird

Matt Bird — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:36:37 +0000

After the success of “Men of Tomorrow” and “The Ten Cent Plague”, I would love to read juicy general-audience tell-alls about what it was like behind the scenes in the comics business in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. One of those “get everybody to dish” books like “Live from New York” did for Saturday Night Live or “Easy Riders, Raging Bulls” did for Hollywood.

By: Teebore

Teebore — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:53:57 +0000

Thanks for the html tips!

And I love that Jones and Jacob book-very readable and it does cover in more detail a lot of things other comic book history books gloss over.