But what I hear is that it was a complete mess. It was confusing and nobody could make sense of what's what. Today, people are saying the same mistakes are being made with DC's newest version of continuity, the whole New Earth thing.
Well, I am directly witnessing how DC's handling a new continuity this time. And you know what I've concluded? If the continuity changes growing out of the first Crisis were handled the same way as the ones from the newer one are, it's not DC who's made their continuity confusing. It's the fans who make major continuity changes confusing. Them and their weird inability to let go of the old continuity and treat the new one as a separate entity. If the changes were handled the same way, because it's possible there are key differences. Given that the complaints about both Crises seem to be of a similar nature though, I have my doubts.
I keep hearing people making non-sensical complaints that Superman's history is now "confusing." Comparison are made to Donna Troy and Hawkman. What are they talking about? I'm sorry, but there's a difference between confusing and unknown. Not knowing New Earth Superman's history except in the broad strokes makes his history (partly) unknown. I fail to see how it makes it confusing. What is there to confuse it with?
Did New Earth Superman know a Supergirl who was protoplasmic organism? Who cares? Well, no, I can understand why someone would care. It affects much of the character's history, and as fans we're interested in that sort of stuff. Someone who's as much of a trivia hound as myself can't cast stones over that. But not knowing how Superman first met Metallo isn't confusing by any definition of the word.
In fact, the moment information like that is confusing, the writing's failed. Because a new reader won't know if Superman ever met a protoplasmic Supergirl. Will s/he even know a protoplasmic Supergirl once existed? And if a book can't attract new readers, then it might as well give up.
This is hardly rocket scientist. We were all new fans once. Having no idea about the characters' histories didn't keep us from becoming fans sans new. We enjoy newly-created characters despite not knowing their histories at first. "Look, the first issue of that new Astro City book is about some guy named Samaratin. Wait, what? It stars in media res, in the middle of his crimefighting career? Is this Busiek guy crazy? How can we enjoy his story if we don't know his history?"
And we also enjoy works like ALL STAR SUPERMAN, where we don't have any specifics on Superman's past. Did that Man of Steel ever fight Bizarro in the past? We didn't know until the latest issue, where there was a mention of past bouts. Until then, zilch information. And no one minded.
Wait, I have no idea what this Superman's first encounter with Mongul was like! How am I expected to enjoy this story that has nothing to do with Mongul?
This is so obvious that I suspect it's not any real "confusion" that's bothering the people complaining. They're not confused, they're unhappy that the previous continuity no longer applies. (And as a trivia-hound, I completely understand that.) But they understand that's not a criticism with any objective weight. It's just a matter of taste, so they twist it, whether conciously or un-, into something about "confusion."
I think there is a place for genuine complaints about confusion, such as when two books offer contradictory New Earth backstory for a character. But the complaints I keep seeing aren't of that color; the main issue is that the backstory's simply as yet unrevealed.
So now I wonder if Hawkman's continuity post-Crisis continuity ever really was that confusing. Or were the fans simply unwilling to separate it from the old one?
Note 1: The image, from the first issue of the Busiek/Pacheco Superman run, I got from www.newsarama.com.
Note 2: If Blogger allowed repeating a tag within one entry, this one would deserve two.
No comments:
Post a Comment