That Whitman quote is my favorite. I use it whenever I'm looking back on old posts I wrote (and also when I gain some weight).

I think it's fine if people are interested in stories that affect various titles and "the over-all fictional 'story' of the comic universe." I'm just left wondering where are the superhero titles where everything I need to know is in the one book instead of going to various titles and learning about a comic universe. I know there are some that fit that mold, but because the financial rewards are there Marvel and DC seem to want to every book to be part of some master plan concerning the Scarlet Witch or Hal Jordon or whoever. It's turning me off a lot of superhero books and I can't imagine how this is going to bring in new readers and keep the Direct Market going on for years and years. I mean, what will happen when those caught up in Flash's rogue gallery or who's dead in the Avengers give up comics (either because they're too old, they die or whatever reason)? Are there younger readers caught up in the same stories to take their place so Marvel and DC can keep spinning universe- and continuity-heavy stories? I don't see it happening (although I'm always willing to be proved wrong).

I don't think stories dependent on comic universes themselves are wrong (other than the issues with creator's rights that comes with shared universes). I don't have a problem with dark superhero stories that take themselves seriously (although I personally don't find them very satisfying). It's the fact that this makes up so much of the Direct Market and the consequences for the Direct Market in the long term if this keeps happening (which is something I don't think those in the Big Two are picking up on) is what I have a problem with.

But yeah, if someone wants to go and on about the history of Batman's sidekicks and how that affects him now I hope they have fun. I don't understand it but I won't juge it.
Ian Brill | Homepage | 04.15.05 - 10:29 am | #

"the fact that the consequences for the Direct Market in the long term if this keeps happening are serious" is my first correction.

"go on and on about Batman's sidekicks" is my second. I apologize for pollutng your blog with my clumsy grammar.
Ian Brill | Homepage | 04.15.05 - 10:33 am | #

Oh, and Gore Vidal has always been my personal inspiration for a lot of my writing. Of course, I'm probably giving him the worst tribute ever with my drivel.

Look at that, a Postmodern Barney comment hat-trick!
Ian Brill | Homepage | 04.15.05 - 10:38 am | #

You trying to say something about my use of obscenities, Dorian?

Well.. well...

[rest of comment edited by American Citizens for Decency]
Ken Lowery | Homepage | 04.15.05 - 11:15 am | #

In the first paragraph of the DC timeline discussion you have written Captain Cold instead of Captain Boomering.
The Eyeball Kid | 04.15.05 - 12:15 pm | #

Ken--No, there's something strangely beautiful about your swearing. If anything, you probably don't swear enough.
Dorian | Homepage | 04.15.05 - 7:01 pm | #

Fuckin' A right I don't.

Ah... damn bitch ass shit.

Fuck.
Ken Lowery | Homepage | 04.16.05 - 12:44 am | #

Hey Dorian,

Here's a site which quite reasonably and thorougly argues for a 18-20 year "modern" DC timeline. You're right that the Teen Titans tend to throw everything off -- I once puzzled out that Dick Grayson would have had to become Robin at age 16 and Nightwing around 18 in order for everything to work out.

The aforementioned site also keeps Barbara Gordon's one-term Congressional career, something which I'm not sure anybody currently at DC has referenced. It's quite comprehensive if you appreciate that kind of thing.
Tom Bondurant | Homepage | 04.16.05 - 8:06 pm | #

I hate the ten-year timeline too. It's pointless and makes it so that the characters can't possibly have anything approaching the history they're supposed to have, a history that in turn helps shape their characters and lets the writers utilize them.

Fuck ten year timelines!
N | Homepage | 04.16.05 - 9:43 pm | #