Re: "Retcon Control… We Have a Problem" I'm feeling a bit guilty about being so outspoken about this. I originally wrote: "The Worst Avengers Comic EVER was Marvel Heroes and Legends (#1 vol1). Never have a I so resented the paying out the price of a publication. The story is a retrospective continuity implant of the kind that gives retcons a bad name. It takes place around the time of the recruitment of Wanda, Pietro and Hawkeye, circa issues 15 and 16. It contradicts established continuity..."

Yo replied: "Funny because when I read it I loved to see that earliest Avengers stories. But them I've not read the originals... In the Spanish intro said that they tried to tell that story like itīd have happen in the 90īs... Must be that I began too late to buy Avengers and I'm looking forward to pick some run that make history. With me if true "better bad than nothing"... Not that I complain if a better writer makes his own version, tho."

Then Space Phantom made the following telling point: "I know Ian was talking about books that are specifically retro, not contemporary, but does this come back to established & new/casual readers looking for different things? Ian didn't like it because it didn't sit with existing stuff, Yo saw it as an entertaining story?"

So Yo, I'm sorry to trash a book you enjoyed, and I hope that I haven't spoiled it for you in the future. That said, I really envy you if you haven't had a chance to get your hands on a lot of the earlier Avengers stuff yet because let me tell you there are things there that do make that issue look pretty lame, and when you do read them for the first time you'll have a treat.

Phantom, you make a lot of sense. It never occurred to me that somebody without a background in Avengers would simply find the book an entertaining read, but I can see how that could happen. And you raise a very interesting point about the different expectations of people with "reading history" and the more recent of the casual reader.

Now I believe that continuity is important (but not all-important) in comics for several reasons. The first is that the consistent narrative of a comic over many issues is at the heart of this episodic art form, and to betray that narrative is to weaken the loyalty of the reader who chooses to follow that tale from month to month. Why bother collecting these things if a year from now the stuff in my collection has been "thrown out" of continuity?

The second reason is that to have characters who are well written their actions must proceed from the established facts of their background. Does it matter that in a comic published 30+ years after the original events some of the motivations are portrayed differently? Well, yes, if that affects our understanding of these characters who are still being written today.

The best example to illustrate this is probably the Gerber origin of Captain America. Steve Gerber established that Cap was actually Steven Grant Rogers of Washington, whose brother's death at Pearl Harbour had prompted him to become Captain America. Cap came from a middle-class military family and took up his duties at least in part to avenge his family. This was clearly a departure from our previous understanding of a Cap motivated by a pure sense of right and wrong and a burning desire to fight for freedom against the Nazi menace. It also contradicted the '70's Invaders stories and the '40's tales which inspired them which clearly depicted Cap in action before America entered the war. If this origin was true, every decision and development in Cap's career to date needed to be evaluated in a different light - and his legend was just a little bit dimmer.

Fortunately, Roger Stern thought so as well, and took steps to retcon the retcon. Steve's memories were proved to be false implants placed to fool Nazi mind-scanning. Cap was plain Steve Rogers of Brooklyn, brought up by a sickly but loving mother, inspired by a teacher who loved America, appalled by the image of the Red Skull grinning on camera over a pile of dead Allied soldiers, and burning with the urge to stand up for all that was right and good. But it was a close call.

Finally on this point, if new readers are given misinterpretations of the original tales, might they not have the reverse reaction to the one I did? I mean, if Yo or anybody eventually comes to read those original stories, are they going to be spoiled for them by a sense that "this isn't the way it should be", even though those tales are the originals?

Reaper further asked: "I wonder whether the continuity can be meaningfully sustained indefinitely, or does it eventually become necessary to start over? Is continuity a strength or an ultimate weakness? I'm not sure."

The recent debate of the Byrne / Stern "modifications" to the Marvel timeline have certainly made this a topical question. For me continuity done right is a strength. It is possible for a good writer to follow what has gone before (so long as we can overlook this Marvel time/real time thing), and Marvel's history has many veins ripe for mining to forge good new stories. But if the writer gets too caught up in the minutiae of the past then the casual reader is excluded and goes away. A common fault of "fan" writers is that they take their first opportunity in print to "put right" some ancient continuity flaw which has always bugged them, not because it makes a good story to do so, but out of a sense of completeness, a need to "tidy".

Please note that I definitely do not include Kurt Busiek in this category. His handling of continuity implants has been nothing short of masterful.

Phantom writes: "At each upturn there seemed to be a new generation of readers come on board with only a relative minority of readers sticking with it from the previous generation. I wondered whether Image comics anticipated this - starting characters from scratch would give new readers the opportunity to be 'in' from the start rather than having to wrestle with 30 years of Marvel continuity, spending $000s on back issues or starting a collection with issue #227? The worrying thing is whether comics will actually emerge from the 90s slump or if stuff like computer games has now superseded them.(I'm rambling)."

There is certainly a challenge for Marvel and DC particularly to keep new readers aware of the important issues of their continuity. A good story should not depend upon the reader having access to Avengers #16 or whatever, but interested fans should at least be able to find what happened. For that reason the compilations and reprints are to be welcomed. The six-part Official Marvel Index to the Avengers is invaluable (1994), as is the Avengers Log. And I have even been favourably impressed with the Marvel Remix title "Fantastic Four: Fireworks". This line of comics seeks to represent the important turning points of Marvel history (in this case, the early romance of the Torch and Crystal).

Phantom concludes: "I'll strongly agree with Ian though, retro books are best undertaken by somebody with a clear understanding of the continuity. Unless you want to rewrite the history of course."

I think that the writer needs to have a clear understanding of the comic's history even to do an effective rewrite of that history. The most recent example of this is the Byrne rewrite of Spider-Man's origin. In attempting to explain the irony of Uncle Ben being killed by the burglar whom Spidey had failed to stop earlier, Byrne has fatally weakened the classic origin of the character. I do not expect this retcon to endure long after Mr Byrne leaves the title. I believe that it betrays a lack of understanding (if not knowledge) on the writer's part of the roots of the series.