Saw someone talking about “the burden of continuity” on another site.
My view of that is: If dealing with continuity is a burden, then someone working on the book is doing it wrong.
I'll add to this that the discussion immediately focus on writers, but my intent had been to say that if you're a reader and you feel there's a "burden of continuity" then someone making the book (usually writer or editor) is doing it wrong.
If you can't make the comic accessible to a new reader...
...without that reader scurrying to Wikipedia, then something has gone wrong.
Whether you love continuity-heavy stuff or hate it, the comic should not need outside reading to understand and enjoy it.
It might be even better if you're familiar with past continuity. But it shouldn't be necessary.
When I started collecting comics, continuity was like mythology that coloured in background and characters, but all you needed to know what was happening TODAY was in the comic you're holding. Even if you came in at the last issue of a multipart story arc. Which happened a lot. And without internet.
This is why I DON'T read so many comics! So many are opaque to new readers and I can't find a way in...
Also why I love stories that just don't care about the "universe" unless it matters for the story that's being told, and are willing to flat out contrdict it if the story is better that way.
I'm not fond of stories that outright contradict past history without more of a reason than "I felt like it," but then, I think there's always a way around that history if you need one.
But if a character got killed the last time they showed up, I'd rather they didn't just pop up again with no...
But that's an editorial issue.
Whether editorial works that way or not, the comics should still be understandable to a new or old reader without them needing to do any research.
I guess I'm thinking more alternate stories in comics with that aspect, but yes. I always loved the Discworld because you could start with any of 40 books with many long term characters and the backstory would never be a hurdle.
Discworld was a reference I kept thinking of with ASTRO CITY. It's a whole world. We can tell stories anywhere or anywhen in it. But any of them should be understandable on its own.
I read a lot of crime fiction - and long-running series with protagonists who collect quite a lot of backstory and supporting characters along the way. The best always know how to lay in just enough, but you don't need to be a hardcore fan to jump on.
Feels like this runs aground when there are multiple creators and/or when people play loosey-goosey with things that should make a difference (see Star Trek's TECH TECH TECH deus ex machina problems)? Like, if you wanted to drop the Scourge of the Underworld into a story, how do you *explain* that?
(I think my favorite moment in THUMB WARS is where the Princess character shows up to the Luke and Han characters--who she has never met or heard of--and says "I escaped somehow. Let's go!")
There are so many comics that aren't based on anything prior though. So many. I've been reading comics for decades, and the majority of comics I read right now were new (as in wholly new concepts) within the last five years.
As a teen I started reading X-Men right after Rogue joined and after Ilyana had come back from Limbo- I didn’t know exactly what happened before but there was enough information provided that I got key details:
Rogue was evil and stole Mrs. Marvel’s powers. Ilyana came back older etc.
Preach! I can way over-think incredibly fine points of lore as much as any nerd, but you're absolutely right. One reason I find Marvel/Star Wars "content" such a chore is the sense that you've got to have a Ph.D to have any idea what the hell is going on, who is doing it and why. Nope.
The problem is a little information is enough to throw a reader off. If I read a story where Superman died and I come back years later and he’s alive, I may have questions, but it would be insane for writers to have to constantly explain why he’s alive just because there could be others like me.
Sure. That’s not information a new (or old, frankly) reader needs to understand and enjoy the story. Unless it’s a plot point in the story, in which case it should be mentioned in a way that’ll be welcoming to new readers and a not-too-intrusive reminder to longtime readers.
I’ve had more trouble getting into things as a lapsed and returning reader than as a new reader that simply accepts everything at face value. Both the Marvel and DC universes seem impenetrable to me now. I know just enough for them to confuse me.
I think, for returning readers, the editorial goal should be the same as for new readers: Give them enough info to understand the current concept and situation.
If someone's confused because they know what the status quo _used_to_be_ and they don't know how it changed, that's something they can...
...go to Wikipedia or Fandom or back issues or TPBs for.
If they can't understand what the current status quo is from a current issue, I'd say something went wrong.
I've switched mainly to European comics or other comics that are short series or mini-series. If I need more than a weekend to read them, it's already too long.
Here are the 1st comics I read from DC & Marvel—the 2nd part of a 2-part story and the 3rd part of a 3-part story, respectively. I had no idea who the JSA were, no idea who Morbius was. The stories made everything clear to me—even Earth-2, duplicate superheroes, and a six-armed Spider-Man!
