"With your reasoning, you could very well say that a writer would feel that his skills and freedom are being smothered because he’s not allowed to have Batman or Superman kill anyone."
If, somehow, he manages to make a good story out of Superman or The Bat-Man killing anyone, then yeah, he's being smothered.
"Selective continuity would have that too you know."
No. The whole point is that it wouldn't have that. Marz would have been free to use Donna Troy as much as he wanted in spite of what was going on in Byrne's book.
"Waid was able to do it splendidly with Batman in JLA. He hates that character, but he characterized him just fine and gave him fair/logical amount of inclusion."
The fact that he hates him doesn't mean he has a different view of him. Perhaps he hates him because of how he sees him. And that's how he used him. If I recall, he revealed The Bat-Man keeps secret records on how to defeat each of the JLA members. In my mind that's something despicable. Maybe Waid hates The Bat-Man because he sees him as someone that would do something like that, and he managed to make a good story out of it.
"I had a job I hated a few days ago (I quit). But just because I hated it doesn’t mean that I did everything half-assed. I’m not going to excuse “human nature”. Sorry."
Writing is something different. You HAVE to believe in what you're doing to produce a good story. Especially in comics: you gotta admit that when there's love for the characters good stories come easier. If DC hired writers like an office hires people, not caring if they hate what they're doing, we would have lameness and mediocrity all around. Geoff Johns is doing an amazing job using continuity. Don't you think he's a guy who loves his continuity? Something like that wouldn't come out of a guy who hates it.
"Yes they are. They’re hired to follow continuity just as they are hired to write stories. If they tell them to, then they’re hired to."
That's an awful vision of the comic industry, I must say.
"(continuity) doesn’t have to (get in the way of telling a good story)."
It can. Say you wanna write a first meeting between two characters. The whole story is based on the fact that it's the very first meeting ever. It's basic to the plot that the story be the first time they. But, some guy already wrote a first meeting between those characters in a story nobody remembers from 15 years ago, that is in continuity. What do you? Do the first meeting and then brainwash the characters so they can have the second and think it's the first? That's fucking lame.
"I’m not saying they have to devote as much time needed to justify something, because that could take awhile (already explained that too). I understand the situation. Relatively speaking, if they don’t much they need to explain, just go on and explain as briefly as possible. If they have they have a lot, do as much as you can briefly as possible without ruining the story. Or, if you feel like letting your talent show, just write your explanations with subtlety throughout the book without letting the story go bland. It’s been done. The best example is the first arc for Lucifer. Carey explained everything using that Navajo girl as a mouth piece for the questions from the readers. That’s one of the most basic types of written justification. There are plenty more and others just waiting to be invented."
But don't you think Carey wanted to do that? Had he been against it, don't you think the quality would be different?
"I don’t buy that. Moore could have just used Manhattan’s godhood to change everything back. Not the only option I see either…"
Change everything back... Lame. Down there with brainwashing everyone. You might as well not do it. If you don't think Watchmen would be radically different had it been fitted into the DCU I urge you to read it again. Serious implications are made about whoever becomes a vigilante. The fact that Manhattan is the only superhero is really important. The fact that costumed vigilantes are outlawed is essential to the plot. I could go on and on...
"I don’t know if you ignored the fact that I already went over how violating continuity in comicbooks and all around killing the movement of one story (as I explained comicbooks as being) is just as potent a mistake as disrupting the order of words or pages in a singular book. It is after taking this into mind that we draw to the conclusion that merit comes from organizing continuity just as much as making a story."
I didn't ignore it, I simply don't see it as a mistake, or as something relevant for that matter. I thought that was implied. By saying that I judge writers on the quality of the stories the make (crazy me!) I'm stating that I don't believe in what you're saying. I have a hard time concieving that someone has a vision like that, actually.
"I know many many people who don’t agree with Gaiman on that."
Don't you think Gaiman has a say on that?
"Your right, it was great, and while it was and felt like a forced inclusion for whatever reason I don’t know (note: not the same as being told to FOLLOW continuity), I thought he handled it splendidly. The book didn’t disappoint me. And even if I and everyone—And I do mean EVERYONE—Felt the latter of those inclusions, those are a few instances. I know MANY more situations where story alone (without continuity) failed me (Legends of the Dark Knight)."
The fact is that these inclusions ("suggested" by DC, contract in hand), to create a sense of a "consistent universe", can boost up sales at the time, but in the end, when the story is collected and presented as literature, they do more bad than good and the writers feels the need to justify it. Stories like Swamp Thing and Sandman are obviously better off as far away from the DCU as possible, only including few elements (most of them obscure and out of continuity), but at the time they were starting out DC tried to link them to the DCU to create the sense of consistency that in the end damaged the book.
I'm tired. I'll continue some other day, though skimming through what comes next I think I've covered everything. These things always end the same way: both people repeating themselves to death though it's obvious they won't change the other person's mind.
