April 14, 2005

Man Bites Dog

I was going to post that there was this nice write-up on HULK #80 over on aintitcoolnews.com. But for some bizarre reason, subsequent discussion of the review on that site has morphed into fans bitching about an issue of X-FACTOR I wrote in which it was revealed that--contrary to John Byrne's story revealing Lockjaw was a misshapen Inhuman--Lockjaw was in fact a dog and the Thing had been hosed.

I was going to respond, but my attempt to do so was thwarted since I did not have an AICN account. When I tried to create one, I was referred to a page saying that the account process was screwed up and it asked for patience. Considering it hadn't been updated since November of 2004, I'm figuring I won't be replying anytime soon.

So if anyone who DOES have access to AICN wants to reprint this entry or refer people to this site, I just wanted to make things clear: For what it's worth, I didn't give a damn about the Byrne story one way or the other. I thought it wasn't bad; not great, but not bad. It did, however, frost the flakes of several writers and the "X-Factor" editor, basically because Byrne's story made the Inhumans look like assholes. John Byrne, foremost advocate of adhering to creator intent, ignored not only sequences where Stan and Jack had the Inhumans referring to, and treating, Lockjaw as their pet or dog, but the subsequent decades worth of continuity that did the same.

So, since Quicksilver was going to be in "X-Factor," the writers--and the editor in particular--asked me to take the opportunity to undo that development as quickly and simply as I could. I shrugged, said, "Okay, boss," and did so.

Now Rick Jones laughing off the Skrull involvement in the Hulk's origin during an issue of CAPTAIN MARVEL...that was all me.

PAD

Posted by Peter David at April 14, 2005 11:35 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commenting
Comments
Posted by: Ian Sokoliwski at April 15, 2005 12:00 AM

First Post!!


...sorry, thought I was an AICN talkbacker there for a moment...terribly sorry :)

Posted by: Brett at April 15, 2005 12:01 AM

Well, I thought the whole Lockjaw thing was one of the funnier aspects of X-Factor 71, which is a perfect issue in my opinion. Nice to know the story behind it.

Posted by: Matt Williams at April 15, 2005 12:20 AM

That Skrull sequence, to me, will always - always - rank as the single greatest retcon in history.

Posted by: Col. Klink at April 15, 2005 12:52 AM

I posted PAD's response on AICN. Hope it doesn't cause the rabid hordes to foam at the mouth! ;)

Posted by: TIP at April 15, 2005 01:50 AM

Fantastic!!!
T

Posted by: Peter David at April 15, 2005 01:52 AM

"That Skrull sequence, to me, will always - always - rank as the single greatest retcon in history."

Let's bear in mind that, in both cases, it was Byrne who did the retcon. Inserting Skrulls into an origin story where they previously weren't is a retcon. Ignoring decades of history to postulate that Lockjaw was not a dog is a retcon. What I did was simply say, "That previous retcon? Ignore it."

When proofreaders want to indicate that an intended change should be ignored and that the typesetter should stick with what was originally there, they write the word "stet" (derived from the Latin for "let it stand") and circle it.

Reversing retcons isn't itself a retcon. It's a stetcon.

PAD

Posted by: gvalley at April 15, 2005 02:21 AM

So, uh, officially in the MU, Lockjaw is NOT a deformed human? Pity; I always thought that was his most endearing quality.

Posted by: Peter David at April 15, 2005 02:55 AM

Following up on AICN, quoted merely in part:

"Anyway, what David did was piss on somebody else's story simply because he (or his Officers) didn't like it. In my opinion, playing the dumb helpless soldier here is a crummy way to pass the buck. I hope he's as "magnanimous" at praising the people [who were] responsible [for] his editorially driven writings that were met with positive response."

Well, I was neither dumb nor helpless, and didn't present myself as such. I'd say "indifferent" would be more appropriate. If I'd been a fan of the story, I'd have refused to write the stetcon and no one could have pushed me into it. But I wasn't, so in this instance, I accommodated those who asked me to address it. I'm not passing any buck. My name is on the story. It was my responsibility. I was simply explaining the background behind this particular stetcon.

And yes, absolutely--although I know the poster was merely being snide--I've never taken credit for something people praised that originated from someone other than me. When people ask about particular story elements that were either suggested by the editor or put in by the artist, I am 100% consistent with indicating who came up with it. I'm interested in telling people how things came to be, not snagging credit for what they liked and assigning blame elsewhere for what they didn't.

PAD

Posted by: Dave F. at April 15, 2005 02:58 AM

So the solution to a story that was perceived (by some) as making the Inhumans look like assholes...was to single out two specific members to look like assholes?

Err...

Howdy, y'all, Dave Farabee from AICN here. I didn't write the HULK review or any reviews for this particular column, but I was the one who kicked off the Lockjaw thing in the TalkBack. So:

First off, I wanted to say, "Thanks for the response, Peter!"

Second, I wanted to point out that at AICN, the reviews are the reviews, and the TalkBacks are a whole 'nother beast - rougher, completely unmoderated...guys shootin' the shit. One of our members liked this latest issue of THE HULK and the fact that the TalkBack tangented elsewhere needn't undermine the positive vibrations. Mon.

As for the topic at hand (some twenty years old though it may be)...when I first brought it up, I acknowledged there was some room for debate, first and foremost because my memories of reading classic FF reprints are hazy and I couldn't recall exactly whether Lockjaw had been treated like a dog o'er the decades or not. Can someone give me a definitive answer on this, maybe describing a relevant scene or two? Because if Lockjaw's doggie-treatment was, say, him drinking water from a bowl, I'd say, "Well that doesn't seem particularly cruel - it's just how he'd be most comfortable drinking given the nature of his newfound physiology." But if, say, Gorgon and Karnak have been seen making him fetch a stick or he won't stop eating his own poop...okay, that's a little different. So on that front, a little help please?

My memories of Lockjaw are more along the lines of him being treated like some uber-smart animal in a Disney toon, one of those beasties that we just know understands everything the humans are saying.

Still...it's hazy. I'll concede we're in a very gray area if someone can cite a few "Lockjaw treated like a dawg" scenes from the past. One thing I know for sure: that the X-FACTOR retcon was editorially mandated doesn't strike me as a mitigating factor. I've got to judge these stories for what they are, not for the behind-the-scenes maneuvering that led to 'em.

-Dave

Posted by: Peter David at April 15, 2005 03:17 AM

"One thing I know for sure: that the X-FACTOR retcon was editorially mandated doesn't strike me as a mitigating factor. I've got to judge these stories for what they are, not for the behind-the-scenes maneuvering that led to 'em."

Okay, but here's the thing: "Behind-the-scenes" motivations are exactly what's being not only discussed but ascribed by people who weren't there, which is not deterring them from casting me in the worst possible light. The attitude of the posters is very consistent: That mean rotten Peter David did it to get back at the hated John Byrne. And I'm saying, No, that's not how it happened, this is how it happened. They're claiming the notion originated with me out of spite, and I'm saying, no, it didn't, it originated with others because they disliked the retcon of Lockjaw and asked me to address it. I'm not looking to mitigate anything; merely respond to harsh opinion with dispassionate fact.

PAD

Posted by: Dave F. at April 15, 2005 03:53 AM

"Behind-the-scenes" motivations are exactly what's being not only discussed but ascribed by people who weren't there, which is not deterring them from casting me in the worst possible light."

Looking back on my AICN posts, it's obvious I'm ticked over the revision, but I don't see any point at which I ascribe motivations to you specifically. Some folks do, but I don't. Closest I come is when I throw out my retcon philosophy: "I like my retcons done Silver Age style: don't go back and try to "fix" things you don't like - just ignore the shit stuff and press on with some good stories."

It's a generalized statement, but one I think is fair to apply to the X-FACTOR issue even without knowing all the behind-the-scenes stuff; obviously *someone* didn't like Byrne's original story or, well, the recton wouldn't have happened! And whether it was the result of the actions of you, an editor, or fans writing in to voice disatisfaction, the net result is the same, so I stand by what I wrote.

And incidentally, Byrne is hardly a beloved figure in the TalkBacks - it just happens that this particular story of his struck a chord with a few of us. Guy who undid it was gonna get badmouthed whether it was you, Alan Moore, or Stan Lee his own bad self.

Actually, if it was Stan...

-Dave

Posted by: Rob at April 15, 2005 04:17 AM

You know what I still remember after all these years from the X-Factor run?


The Mayo jar gag.
That was funny.

And speaking of Captain Marvel, anyone else following his little Identity Crisis in New Thunderbolts? Did Fabian talk to you at all about Marv showing up, or is this the first you've heard about it?

Posted by: Jesse Willey at April 15, 2005 07:55 AM

You know what I still remember after all these years from the X-Factor run?


The Mayo jar gag.
That was funny.

Indeed it was.

As was 'The Little Multiple Mans Room' sequence. Which, sure, they are siblings by adoption... but it was still kinda creepy.

Posted by: Michael Pullmann at April 15, 2005 08:31 AM

"So the solution to a story that was perceived (by some) as making the Inhumans look like assholes...was to single out two specific members to look like assholes?"

Yeah, that struck me too; the Inhumans playing such a prank on the Thing doesn't sound all that nice either. But, such are the hazards of stetcons. And, really, I didn't care for the "Lockjaw's a really disfigured Inhuman" bit too much. I mean, okay, it makes him tragic, but what's the point in a tragic Lockjaw? You can get probably a one-shot out of it, having him walk around Atillan being all maudlin in his narrative captions, but then what? He's a supporting character by nature, and as such, I think he works a lot better as just the Inhumans' teleporting dog. It's got a Silver Age charm to it.

Posted by: Howard Price at April 15, 2005 09:03 AM

My favorite X-Factor moment? Fighting the Hulk in MY HOME TOWN of Sparta, IL. To think, at one point in history, every single comic book ever printed (or darn near) came out World Color Press in Sparta.

And there wasn't a place to buy comics within 30 miles of the place. Now *that* is how you torture a too-young-to-drive comics fan.

Posted by: Mike at April 15, 2005 09:05 AM

What issue does the Skrull/Jones stetcon take place in?

Posted by: Jer at April 15, 2005 09:15 AM

"So the solution to a story that was perceived (by some) as making the Inhumans look like assholes...was to single out two specific members to look like assholes?"

Why would it make them look like assholes? They were playing a practical joke. The FF book has had a history of Ben and Johnny playing practical jokes on each other, why not have others get into the act?

And, really, getting worked up over a retcon of this magnitute (i.e. infintesimal) is not worth it in either direction. I mean, I didn't like Byrne's decision to make Lockjaw a deformed Inhuman because I thought it was stupid. It was another example of him taking something fun and turning it into something not-fun, something many comic-book writers have a problem with. (There should be a support group or something). However, if it had never been "fixed" I would have just ignored it anyway because, really, how often is it going to come up?

The Skrull thing, though, that was classic. I remember reading that panel and busting up laughing. To this day anytime there's some stupid bit of comic book discontinuity that my friends and I come across when we're reading a book, we say "Obviously, it must be the Skrulls." It makes everything work.

Posted by: Robbnn at April 15, 2005 09:31 AM

That gag is one of the only things I remember about the X-Factor run (not bad stories, just a rotten memory).

When it was 'revealed' that Lockjaw was an Inhuman 'human' and not an Inhuman 'dog' I recall liking the idea at first, then annoyed because he would have to be handled differently, and then it struck me that the Inhumans had been treating him like more of a slave than even a pet. If he was capable of kicking into the family discussions but never drawn out, then he was just the unhired help. And I recall Blackbolt feeding him a steak and petting him like a dog, as well as a few others... It was a cute gag, but had long term ramifications that I didn't like.

Then the X-Factor thing and not only was it funny (poor dumped on Thing) but it *ahem* humanized - was it Triton and Gargon? - quite a bit.

Hmmm, maybe the Inhumans would be good for FF 2 - The InMovie...

Posted by: WarrenSJonesIII at April 15, 2005 09:59 AM

I never liked the LockJaw could talk storyline, and I thought that the X-Factor panel cleared that up nicely.

Marvel like DC really doesn't make continuity a top priority and I am sure that every Avenger that die in the Avengers Dissassembled travesty will be back by Winter 05.

Of course that is just my opinion I could be wrong.

Regards:
Warren S. Jones III

Posted by: Steve at April 15, 2005 10:21 AM

>>They're claiming the notion originated with me out of spite, and I'm saying, no, it didn't

Not the Lockjaw instance, maybe, but the Rick/Skrull comment, of course, DID originate out of spite and was completely unprofessional... but hey, at least it was FUNNY, right, Peter?

Posted by: David at April 15, 2005 10:26 AM

I never followed the story, but I have considered if Lockjaw was a human. I supposed the rationale for a dog to be exposed to the mists was for the royal family to have extra protection.

While we are on the subject of Byrne, I know it's popular to bash Byrne (I didn't like the return of Doom Patrol), I dislike the fact that other creators are 'revising' the story that work. For example, Alpha Flight was turned into a joke. Man of Steel is the definitive Superman origin for me but now there seems to be a push to layer it.

I know Superman origin has always been retconned. I have watched the old cartoon serials where it states it grew up in foster care.

The more things change...

Posted by: R. Maheras at April 15, 2005 10:32 AM

There was a story arc where Lockjaw was revealed to be a deformed Inhuman? Heck, why not have a story arc where it is revealed that Black Bolt is a deformed dog? It makes as much sense.

Posted by: Peter David at April 15, 2005 11:16 AM

"Not the Lockjaw instance, maybe, but the Rick/Skrull comment, of course, DID originate out of spite and was completely unprofessional... but hey, at least it was FUNNY, right, Peter?"

Well, I like to think it was funny, but that wasn't spite either. That was just that I thought the story was stupid. So I had Rick reacting in the same way that many fans and I had reacted.

Some years back, David Michelinie had the Hulk, during his Pantheon days, guest star in two issues of "Spider-Man" which featured a number of things that simply made no sense vis a vis the Hulk. We complained about it at the plot stage when it was sent to Bobbie Chase for approval. The editor ignored our objections and the story saw print as was. So I said, "Fine," and in a subsequent "Hulk" story, referred to the Spider-Man two parter as a bad dream the Hulk had had. One line toss off. Yet no one has EVER accused me of doing so out of spite to David Michelinie. John Byrne, meantime, if I'm recalling correctly (I could be wrong it; might have been someone else), blew off a ton of Doc Doom appearances he felt were out of character by saying it was a malfunctioning Doc Doom robot. It's about the ideas, not the people who executed them. Not to go all Cochrane, but if you feel the story is shite, you must rewrite.

PAD

Posted by: Peter David at April 15, 2005 11:33 AM

And just for the record, the reason I always liked the practical joke explanation was specifically BECAUSE it seemed so ridiculous. The elegance was in its absurdity. Because for those fans who disliked Byrne's retcon, they could embrace this and say, "Thank God." For those who liked the retcon, they could look for reasons that Quicksilver was in fact lying to Madrox. And they wouldn't have far to look: the reason is right there in Byrne's own story. Lockjaw's status is supposed to be the Inhuman's darkest secret. If it's a freakin secret, do you REALLY want everybody and his brother knowing? So Quicksilver came up with the first explanation off the top of his head that he could to throw Madrox off the track. Then all we had to do was never have Lockjaw talk again--which no one else at Marvel was gonna do anyway since they hated it--and everyone would be satisfied. Everyone wins.

My one miscalculation was that I haven't actually ever seen fans come up with the explanation that I thought was kind of obvious.

PAD

Posted by: Dave F. at April 15, 2005 12:00 PM

"And, really, I didn't care for the "Lockjaw's a really disfigured Inhuman" bit too much. I mean, okay, it makes him tragic, but what's the point in a tragic Lockjaw? You can get probably a one-shot out of it, having him walk around Atillan being all maudlin in his narrative captions, but then what?"

Byrne's story was pretty much a done-in-one tale featuring a poignant twist ending in the tradition of so many sci-fi short stories. Part of its beauty, from my point of view, is precisely that it needn't be followed up on. We, the readers, are privy to the dark secret of the Inhumans, but that doesn't actually require that Lockjaw become a lead character, gain narrative captions, or anything of the sort. Byrne left the specifics of Lockjaw's history completely ambiguous, revealing only that he'd one been a man, and leaving room for readers to speculate and other writers to essentially write the character as the faithful mute he'd always been. For those readers in "the know", Lockjaw's gloomy hangdog expression might simply have added poignancy in future appearances, and for those who weren't...hey, he can just be a dog. Who knows? Maybe Lockjaw's mind has an animalistic fog in his transformed state, human-like thought being something that occurs only in sharply emotional states (as in the THING issue). Byrne, for all that he dropped a bombshell, left some wiggle room for interpretation.

-Dave

Posted by: Brian Geers at April 15, 2005 12:01 PM

I kind of liked the "middle ground" approach that the Jenkins/Lee Inhumans miniseries took with Lockjaw (where he was a mildly sentient but not vocal teleporting dog). Truth be told, though, the X-Factor explanation made sense enough to me at the time and I never got up in arms over it. He's here. He disappears. He's a dog. So get used to it.

Byrne's "Chapter One" binge was probably the most appalling attempt at comic bookery ever inflicted upon the comics reading public. Given that no one really ever referenced his "Spider-Man" revamp except for him, I think it's best ignored completely (or simply laughed at).

As for the "Malfunctioning Doombot" thing, I believe that Byrne used that to explain away Doom's "uncharacteristic" behavior in the books Byrne wasn't writing at the time, but I also seem to remember that Walt Simonson (circa FF #350) played the "Faulty Doombot" stetcon card as well.

I wouldn't waste time trying to convince the AICN crowd to back off of their opinions. They don't seem like the sort that's happy with anything less than griping about every single bit of pop culture minutae that they don't like, bad-mouthing the writers there, and reasserting the fact that George Lucas "forcefully had his way" with their childhood. I wouldn't lose sleep, PAD, if they don't come around to your way of thinking.

Posted by: Dave F. at April 15, 2005 12:14 PM

"Why would it make them look like assholes? They were playing a practical joke. The FF book has had a history of Ben and Johnny playing practical jokes on each other, why not have others get into the act?"

Well, this was a practical joke played during a moment of emotional turmoil equivalent to Terri Schiavo's situation, so maybe you can see how the context doesn't work.

"And, really, getting worked up over a retcon of this magnitute (i.e. infintesimal) is not worth it in either direction."

To clarify: me and a few other guys were grousing on a message board, same as occurs at David's own blog and bajillions of message boards across the internet. David responded, I responded, others have responded...but in the end, I assume we're all aware we're talking creative differences and maybe some differences over professionalism, but I'm sure it's something we'll all manage to work past in a day or two ;)

Which is to say: we're just a few guys talkin' here - what's the harm? In the big scheme of life, sure, these stories aren't pressingly significant, but anyone who loves comics or prose or movies surely recognizes that stories do mean something when they touch us. I think it's okay to gab a little about 'em.

-Dave

Posted by: Bobb at April 15, 2005 12:56 PM

Egad, if we couldn't use blogs like this, and message boards everywhere, to discuss the most minute and insignificant details of such things as movies, comic books, and the occasional real-life news story, why, there'd be no use for the internet at all.

And we'd all be a lot more productive at our jobs, or whatever it is we're supposed to be doing while we enter posts. Like this one.

Posted by: tom dakers at April 15, 2005 01:34 PM

"Egad, if we couldn't use blogs like this, and message boards everywhere, to discuss the most minute and insignificant details of such things as movies, comic books, and the occasional real-life news story, why, there'd be no use for the internet at all."

Well......there is always porn.....

Posted by: Mark D at April 15, 2005 01:44 PM

Dude... you did not just inject a dead woman into a discussion about some stupid comic non-controversy... I have a million things to say to that - most unflattering to you - but since you're about to get gang-flamed anyway, I'll just leave it alone and walk away shaking my head.

Posted by: Adoresixtyfour at April 15, 2005 02:07 PM

"Stetcon"? As a professional proofreader, this made me smile and smile. Thanks, PAD.

Posted by: Randy Lander at April 15, 2005 02:08 PM

You know, I was actually impressed at how civil most of this had been, but congratulations, Mark D, on lowering the bar.

If that's your idea of "leaving it alone" (while missing the point, I might add, and ascribing to Dave personality flaws that I assure you ain't there), you might want to work on a few personal things yourself.

Posted by: Bobb at April 15, 2005 02:45 PM

"Well......there is always porn....."

But then it would just be pornnet.

Somewhat related to the topic, would Lion King 1 1/2 be considered a retcon? Having just watched the original Lion King with an almost 4 year old, I realized one reason for making 1 1/2 (other than more money) was probably that telling the story from that perspective avoids the messy youngin' questions of "what happened to his dad" for some parents.

Posted by: Mark L at April 15, 2005 03:05 PM

I think the reasons for LK1.5 were much more basic: $$$$

The first LK was a masterpiece. All copies of 1.5 should be burned.

It's kind of like when George Lucas forcefully had his way with my childhood when he produced SWI :)

Posted by: Bobb at April 15, 2005 03:36 PM

Except something tells me that Lucas wasn't really concerned with $$ when he made EpI. I recently re-watched it, and while it's by no means a great movie, most of the problems I think stem from Lil Jake's lack of serious acting chops. Oh, that, and major portions of the script.

My take (and I'll freely admit I'm trying to put the best spin on Ep I-III that I can) is that III is going to be so dark, that I had to be made more childlike and innocent, in order to create balance. In fact, I forsee a time when English Film classes 30 years hence come to exactly this same conclusion, citing Lucas as a consummate artist.

Or maybe that's just midichlorians whispering in my ear.....

Do midichlorians qualify as a retcon? And would that make the total absence of them in Ep II a stetcon?

Posted by: Scavenger at April 15, 2005 03:58 PM

Well yeah, $$$ was the reason for LK 1 1/2...LK2 was very successful.

LK 1.1/2 isn't awful when you realize that LK is pretty much Hamlet, Timon & Pumba are Rosencrantz and Gildenstern, so LK 1.5 is Rosencrantz and Gildenstern Are Dead.

Posted by: Thacher E. Cleveland at April 15, 2005 04:36 PM

Reversing retcons isn't itself a retcon. It's a stetcon.

But if you find a retcon so cute and adorable that you take it home and feed it and take care of it and make it a member of the family, does that make it a petcon?

Posted by: Bobb at April 15, 2005 04:50 PM

I'm glad it's the weekend. I don't know if I want to be around to see the ___tcons to come...

Posted by: garbonzo at April 15, 2005 05:08 PM

If a New York baseball Team shows promise, then falls apart, does that make it a Metcon? And if a retcon is aware that it is a retcon doesn't that make it a metacon? And if john Byrne does the art for one of these retcons...wait for it...does that make him a con-artist?

Just wondering.

garbonzo

Posted by: J. Alexander at April 15, 2005 05:21 PM

Of course if you change the history of a Star Wars character, it's a FETTCON.

Posted by: Dave F. at April 15, 2005 05:22 PM

"Dude... you did not just inject a dead woman into a discussion about some stupid comic non-controversy..."

Sure I did.

My point was that Byrne's sci-fi story served the purpose that sci-fi stories often do: it used wild concepts and characters to touch on utterly serious real world issues. You barely have to scrath the surface of metaphor to see the Terragen Mists debate as a larger-than-life analog to parent/child issues as heady as abortion or adoption. Beyond that, the story called into question the most sacred tradition of the Inhumans, the brutal fight between the Thing and Black Bolt serving as a hyperbolic stand-in for the same type of social/religious/culture clashes we see in such real world tragedies as...yes, Terri Schiavo.

It's okay to talk about such things when stories invite you to. For instance, if Sentinels wipe out millions on Genosha, it's okay to discuss the event as it relates to the Holocaust. And how many comic book war stories over the last few years have called to mind the war in Iraq, or the controversy over Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib?

We talk about serious things as they relate to serious stories all the time. If you can't see that...flame away.

-Dave

Posted by: liquidlen at April 15, 2005 05:33 PM

I am loving this discussion because it makes clear how subjective comics can be.

I had read precious little of The Inhumans before that issue of The Thing. For whatever reason, we just kept missing each other. BUT - the few times I did encounter them, I hated them. I don't know why; it doesn't matter why. I thought they were assholes. So Lockjaw being their dirty little secret dovetailed nicely into what I already thought about them. Kind of like if you already hate, say, a politician, and they end up being exposed as crooked and corrupt. "Aha! I knew I hated ____, and NOW I know why!"

So I was totally willing to run with the Lockjaw/pariah/slave/hubris angle, to the point of imagining what the royal family DID to poor Lockjaw once they were behind closed doors again. I'm sure I'm projecting...

Posted by: Dave F. at April 15, 2005 05:37 PM

"So I was totally willing to run with the Lockjaw/pariah/slave/hubris angle, to the point of imagining what the royal family DID to poor Lockjaw once they were behind closed doors again. I'm sure I'm projecting..."

Good LORD!

And here's the point where I start to back out of the room quietly...

;)

-Dave

Posted by: Mark D. at April 15, 2005 05:47 PM

Using the memory of a dead woman who suffered for 15 years to further ones own agenda - be it a political one or to prove a point about a *comic book* - is in poor taste. I don't know you, Mr. Farabee. I don't care to. You derailed a thread about HULK #80 and turned it into something trashy and rude. Given the amount of debate that went on here regarding Mrs. Shiavo, I daresay you were trying to stir up the same thing here by invoking the name of Mrs. Shiavo. I guess that makes me an idiot for taking the bait doesn't it.

Posted by: Dave F. at April 15, 2005 06:05 PM

"Given the amount of debate that went on here regarding Mrs. Shiavo, I daresay you were trying to stir up the same thing here by invoking the name of Mrs. Shiavo."

Actually, I only peek in on Peter David's blog occasionally, so my knowledge of the debating that went on here over the Schiavo case is precisely zero.

Let me ask, though: I do remember Peter David touching on the Abu Ghraib scandal some months back when he noted the eerie timeliness of the FALLEN ANGEL torture story he'd penned before the scandal ever came out. Was David "furthering his agenda" for simply mentioning Abu Ghraib to make a point about timeless issues? Was he mocking the tortured?

Of course not.

You're looking for agendas that aren't there, man. I mentioned the Schiavo case because it was a serious case of public division over an issue, broadly similar to the serious division Byrne presented through metaphor in the THING story. I was trying to show how out of place it was to insert a practical joke in the matter - end of story.

If I've inadvertantly brought up troubled board memories, my apologies.

As for derailing the HULK thread, I got no clue what you're talking about. Peter David himself was the one who chose to write about the thread drift of the AICN TalkBacks rather than the positive review my group gave the HULK! Meanwhile, there's a HULK thread on his board that's reached 91 posts with nary a mention of AICN. I haven't derailed jack.

-Dave

Posted by: David Race at April 15, 2005 06:11 PM

Lockjaw couldn't talk, while Terri Schiavo was desperately trying to talk even as she lay there starving to death. How is that the same?!

Posted by: Peter Svensson at April 15, 2005 06:16 PM

Explaining the Skrull/Jones bit. John Byrne did a Hulk Annual in which he did a few retcons to the origin, most notably removing the Soviet spy angle, and replacing it with Skrulls.

PAD then wrote an issue of Captain Marvel where Rick Jones is reading that very comic and laughs. I liked that stetcon (thanks for the new word Peter!) because it was a simple way of showing that Hulk: Chapter One is no longer in continuity. And funny.

Posted by: liquidlen at April 15, 2005 06:17 PM

"Lockjaw couldn't talk, while Terri Schiavo was desperately trying to talk even as she lay there starving to death. How is that the same?!"

NOW the thread is derailed...

Posted by: Thacher E. Cleveland at April 15, 2005 06:52 PM

Of course, don't even get me started on the bizarre series of events involving characters like Aquaman and Namor. I mean, talk about involed continuity and backstory. I've never seen a bigger case for a wetcon in my entire life.

Y'know, I think we should all just keep coming up with __con puns until the whole bitter Terri Schiavo crumbles in the corner and cries. Seriously, this is the kind of thing that puts me off reading comments anywhere on the 'net, be it here, Newsarama or usenet. It just ends up being bitter and pointless, and I can't take it.

It's the kind of thing that makes we wonder what you'd call it if you changed the continuity on a character just because of a wager...

Posted by: Dave F. at April 15, 2005 06:57 PM

"Lockjaw couldn't talk, while Terri Schiavo was desperately trying to talk even as she lay there starving to death. How is that the same?!"

Okay, we're stepping around volatile issues and maybe I've been assuming folks are more familiar with the THING story than they are, so let me try to summarize it and explain why I brought up something so serious as the Schiavo case:

At the heart of Byrne's issue of THE THING was a painfully divisive issue over Inhuman cultural tradition: exposing Inhuman children of a certain age to the "Terrigen Mists" that give them their powers and (sometimes) animalistic visuals. This is a sacred tradition for the Inhumans, but is complicated by the fact that Crystal and Quicksilver's child (now of age to enter the Mists) is actually human, her parents' mutant and Inhuman genes having effectively "cancelled" each other out. Crystal refuses to let her baby be exposed, as the Mists are specifically for Inhumans and there's no knowing what they'll do to her human child. Quicksilver, however, is adamant on observing tradition, and his egotism factors in too as he wants a child with powers - a child "better" than normal humans. If memory serves, Inhuman tradition specifically has this as the father's decision to make, complicating the topic yet again (and evoking real-world parental issues).

What happens in the story is that the Thing sides with Crystal, who's gone into hiding with her child (a kidnapping from the Inhuman perspective), and eventually it gets so ugly that the Thing and Blackbolt are literally beating the crap out of each other over the kid's fate.

In the stunning finale, Lockjaw speaks, shocking everyone. He challenges Quicksilver's notion that anything would be better than having a "mere human" as a child, the revelation of Lockjaw's own deforming experience with the Mists shocking everyone into a moment of clarity. The child, it's decided, will not be exposed to the mists.

More info and some relevant panels here:

http://www.ffplaza.com/commcenter/articles/Lockjaw.shtml

Why did I bring up Terri Schiavo? Not because of a one-to-one correlation with Lockjaw's case, but because her very publicly debated fate abstractly called to mind the huge divide over belief and tradition at the heart of the THING story. Again, the intent was to point out how very serious the issue of THE THING was, and why I felt the retcon insertion of a practical joke into its finale was so out of place.

-Dave

Posted by: Alan Coil at April 15, 2005 07:26 PM

Dave F.

For crying out loud, it's just a comic book story. It's make believe.

Bringing Terry Schiavo into the discussion is ignorance, arrogance, or an inane attempt to try to make comics more important than they are. Leave the poor woman alone. Let her rest in peace.

Posted by: J. Alexander at April 15, 2005 07:41 PM

Personally, I have come to the conclusion that the best way to deal with one's feelings about Lockjaw is not to blame John Byrne, not to blame Peter David. Just blame Bush. :-)

Posted by: Scott Iskow at April 15, 2005 08:07 PM

For crying out loud, it's just a comic book story. It's make believe.

Then why's everybody making such a fuss about this issue in the first place? Continuity, retcons, and now "stetcons"...

Gee, maybe it's because they like comics and bring meaning to it that otherwise might not be there. The darnedest things happen when people read. It's harder than ever to get people's imaginations revved up, then people like you come along and sh** on the whole thing. It's infuriating.

Bringing Terry Schiavo into the discussion is ignorance, arrogance, or an inane attempt to try to make comics more important than they are.

Prove it.

Leave the poor woman alone. Let her rest in peace.

Somehow I think she'll rest in peace no matter what anybody says. I'd say it's almost impossible to do her any more harm. It's nice to know she has a guardian angel like yourself looking out for her, though. Better late than never.

Posted by: Jerry at April 15, 2005 08:08 PM

"Why would it make them look like assholes? They were playing a practical joke. The FF book has had a history of Ben and Johnny playing practical jokes on each other, why not have others get into the act?"

Well, this was a practical joke played during a moment of emotional turmoil equivalent to Terri Schiavo's situation, so maybe you can see how the context doesn't work.


I don't know. Some things are so bad that sometimes the only way some people can deal with them is make a joke about it. I'm a police officer and can tell you some really nasty stuff that became the source of gallows humor and even pranks amongst the brotherhood of the badge. Sometimes even at what would seem to a normal person as the wrong place and time. It kinda makes sense that guys who have seen things that are that much worse then what we see would have a sense of humor that is that much more warped.

Posted by: garbonzo at April 15, 2005 08:09 PM

So if a bunch of French dancing girls did the retcon would it be a can-con?

But if it had any reall artistic merit it would probably be a Cannes-con.

Just a thought.

But then again. For all of us completists, having to go buy new issues of something makes it a bit of a debtcon.

Oh...I could go on all day.


garbonzo

Posted by: Jerry at April 15, 2005 08:16 PM

Oh, yeah....

It doesn't make them look like assholes either. There are things we do to each other that we would never do to a civi or some one we didn't know. We would most likely end up in court over it ourselves. But there's almost no prank too low when pulling it on "one of our own." Thing was one of them. He wasn't an Inhuman but he did more then his fair share of slogging through some kinda hells with them and on his own. Same thing. Same code of conduct. Same fair game rule for humor.

Posted by: Jerry at April 15, 2005 08:31 PM

If it's done in Japan it's called Manga-Con. Or is that when you have to retcon a planet?

Posted by: David at April 15, 2005 08:41 PM

Getting back to cases..

Explaining the Skrull/Jones bit. John Byrne did a Hulk Annual in which he did a few retcons to the origin, most notably removing the Soviet spy angle, and replacing it with Skrulls.

That goes back to my point on Man of Steel. It seems trendy to revisit the origins or milestone events for story material. In my view, MoS was perfect, it stuck to the basics. Writers want to compound the origins with new twists. I don't think readers were crying out for a revised Spider-Man origin or make Krypton look like Legion of Super Heroes.

We'll have a second shooter at the Wayne mugging, Billy Batson's parents killed by Vandal Savage, or Krypton a human colony in the distant future where Jor-El sends his son into the past to become the man.. of.. tomorrow.

Gahhhh!!

Posted by: Gary M. Miller at April 15, 2005 10:28 PM

If it's done in Japan it's called Manga-Con. Or is that when you have to retcon a planet?

No, I think that's what they were going to call the systematic disassembly of everything Keith Giffen, J.M. DeMatteis, and Kevin Maguire worked so hard to do with the Justice League back in the 80s...and they figured it would be perfectly ironic*. Then they settled on "Countdown" and the rest is history.

(* Ironic because...okay, boy did this joke fall flat...one of that era's bad guys was named Manga KHAN...ba-DUM-bum.)

Whee.

~G., who for the record liked Byrne's retcon, but at the same time sees it as rather messy, and didn't care that PAD stetconned the retcon

Posted by: garbonzo at April 15, 2005 11:40 PM

If it is a retcon that we are all worried about, does that make it a fretcon? Or is that what it is called when someone remakes a great song poorly? (eg. Madonna made a fretcon of American Pie)

And if someone doesn't give a damn about the retcon, is that a Rhettcon?

Like Isaid, I've got a million of these, and nothing but time on my hands.

Hey, if it is done quickly, would that be a jetcon?

Posted by: Ravenwing263 at April 15, 2005 11:44 PM

If it's done in Japan it's called Manga-Con. Or is that when you have to retcon a planet?

I thought it was an OAV.

Posted by: Thacher E. Cleveland at April 16, 2005 12:26 AM

I think garbonzo has the right idea...bravo/a, my friend.

When all is said and done, we're talking about a six foot bulldog with a moustache and tuning fork on his head. That can teleport. Don't worry about it.

Let's make this a no-sweatcon.

Posted by: Rex Hondo at April 16, 2005 12:48 AM

Every new Transformers story that diverges further from original continuity would be a Decepticon, now wouldn't it?

Also, the whole Jor-El sending his son into the past angle was how the Elseworlds "Red Son" ended, I think...

Posted by: Shortdawg at April 16, 2005 12:59 AM

Considering that Reed and Ben used to have ties to WWII and no longer do, I suppose that the changes in their history are a vetcom! (Hey, SOMEBODY had to say it.)

I'm of two minds on the whole Lockjaw/deformed human debate. At the time, as a kid, I remember thinking that it was a pretty powerful story. But, in retrospect, it does make the Inhumans' treatment of Lockjaw seem creepy, if not downright criminal. My own take on the whole situation is that Lockjaw LIKED being Crystal's dog. For more on this, please see my 70,000-word fan fiction opus at www.superheroS&M.org(asm).

Posted by: Mike at April 16, 2005 01:21 AM


Actually...
I think since the whole flap is about a dog being changed into a human and then back into man's best friend it's a...

petcon.

Posted by: Mike at April 16, 2005 01:23 AM


Errr...
Or I could read all the posts and see that its already been done. *blush*

I'm such a poser.

Posted by: Sarik at April 16, 2005 02:00 AM

I'm hoping that whenever PAD's next super-secret Marvel project featuring Madrox and/or X-Factor hits the shelves, we'll see the return of the mayo jar.

Posted by: Sasha at April 16, 2005 02:31 AM

Of course, there also exist those cases where a retcon infuriates the fans so much that the fury generated can only mean that that you now have . . .

. . . wait for it . . .

. . . a Wrath-of-con.


:)

Posted by: Dave F. at April 16, 2005 03:29 AM

"For crying out loud, it's just a comic book story. It's make believe."

Thanks for the newsflash. Here's another: I didn't make a big issue of it in the first place. I griped about a comic on a message board, something I'm 99% sure everyone here's done before, and Peter David challenged a few parts of the ensuing discussion in his forum. I responded to clarify. Pretty reasonable stuff from my point of view.

Why does everyone get so up in arms that we should discuss a story at some length? It might be high art, it might be low art, but if people wanna talk, what's the harm? Are the 93 posts in the HULK #80 thread more acceptable because they were lighter in tone and not inclined to be critical? Do comic book discussions need to "hurry up and finish" because, I dunno, we're supposed to be embarassed about the hobby we share?

I think I've kept on a pretty even keel here. I opened by asking for further clarification on the THING issue in question, I explained why I didn't like the retcon when asked about it, and when someone erroneously claimed I brought up the Schiavo case to stir shit, I elaborated on my reasoning.

I'll tell ya: in a few days, this will all be off my mind completely because it doesn't matter that much to me...but it's not a discussion I regret having. Most folks here were pretty reasonable, and I can aaaaaalmost buy the "gallows humor" notion the one guy put forward - but for the fact that it doesn't fit the honorable (if somewhat archaic) traditions of the Inhumans.

Anyway, I think I've covered most of the ground I wanted to, so unless anyone's got anything serious to bounce around still...peace out, y'all. I'm off to an untroubled sleep.

Bed-con.

-Dave

Posted by: Rex Hondo at April 16, 2005 04:18 AM

"Considering that Reed and Ben used to have ties to WWII and no longer do, I suppose that the changes in their history are a vetcom! (Hey, SOMEBODY had to say it.)"

Now, if somebody wanted to provide medical evidence to show that Lockjaw is, indeed, a dog, that would take a vetcon of a different type entirely, not to be mistaken with the retooling of a really bad Mark Hamill movie, which would be a Vette-con.

I also wonder if the sum total of the ways in which a character's history has been monkeyed with could be called that character's net-con...
Again, not to be mistaken with the net-con that would occur if I were to rewrite one of my earlier posts.

OK, I'm done for now... :P

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by: Madjak at April 16, 2005 07:45 AM

Tom Dakers wrote:
Egad, if we couldn't use blogs like this, and message boards everywhere, to discuss the most minute and insignificant details of such things as movies, comic books, and the occasional real-life news story, why, there'd be no use for the internet at all.

Me: Video Games and Porn man. Games and porn...

Posted by: Rex Hondo at April 16, 2005 08:04 AM

And let us not forget the joys of on-line shopping. For the last three or four years, I haven't had to so much as set foot in a retail establishment any time during the Christmas season. God bless Amazon!

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at April 16, 2005 09:59 AM

my take on the Byrne story--it was powerful, had a great ending, showed a good deal of imagination...and was all wrong. It would have made a GREAT piece of fan fiction or maybe a WHAT IF but it never should have been presented as part of the actual continuity.

I had all of the INHUMANS comics (all what, 12 of them)and, while I can't swear on a stack of bibles on this, I suspect that there must have been at least one point where if Lockjaw could have spoken, he would have (there was, for example, the time that Gorgon fell down the well and Lockjaw went to get help and all of the idiots just stood around and said stuff like "What's the matter fella?" and "I think he's trying to tell us something!"

As others have pointed out, it's unusual for people in the Marvel Universe to have pets and it was nice for pet lovers to have a smart loyal DOG as a character.

As for Peter's stetcon, it was probably the best solution to the problem.

Posted by: garbonzo at April 16, 2005 10:22 AM

So...back from my night of restless sleep. I know you were waiting with bated breath for these:

If the retcon deals with a powerful wizard from K'un Lun does that make it a Master-Con?

If we are confused by a very vague retcon does that make it an interpretcon?

And if the person who wrote the retcon used an AOL account with lots of little smiley faces, would that make it an emoticon?

If a little girl did the retcon (or if it involves de-aging several characters like in the recent Power-Pack series) then it would be a barretcon.

Alright. I will leave you in peace for a few hours. Let these soak in.

garbonzo

Posted by: Randomus at April 16, 2005 11:42 AM

Sure, it could be a Wrath-of-con, but from Shatner's point of view I think we can all agree that it's a KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANcon.

Posted by: SER at April 16, 2005 11:43 AM

I won't get into which particular Lockjaw story (Byrne or PAD's) was better as I haven't read either in years, but I do strongly object to the idea that the Inhumans are jerks for treating Lockjaw -- if a deformed Inhuman -- like a pet. I mean, there's great precedent for people treating their full-grown relatives who are mentally disabled like overgrown children. And they still at least resemble adults rather than a large dog (perception is everything).

As for HULK: CHAPTER ONE, what's the problem with Skrulls that everyone seems to have? Skrulls are a major Marvel villain. It's not like Byrne retconned Stilt Man into the Hulk's origin.

Taking Marvel time into account, when CHAPTER ONE came out, it would have had to have been set just after or even well after the Berlin Wall fell. Having Igor, the big bad behind what happened to Banner, be a "commie" wouldn't make sense. I thought making him a Skrull actually solved some problems.

The story itself I wasn't crazy about, nor the art, but my problem wasn't with Skrulls, per se.

Posted by: shandrakor at April 16, 2005 01:14 PM

Sure, it could be a Wrath-of-con, but from Shatner's point of view I think we can all agree that it's a KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANcon.

Actually, I think it would be a retKHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN

Posted by: Bunch at April 16, 2005 01:23 PM

One would think that all these bad "___con" puns would start making people sick, and thus creating an online retchcon.

Posted by: David S. at April 16, 2005 01:55 PM

FF#66, which introduced Kree Sentry #459, had a Lee/Kirby scene where Johnny is about to kiss Crystal and Lockjaw interrupts them by "licking Johnny's face!" I don't know that many humans who would have done that, but I've personally known several dogs who have done that to draw attention to themselves when they've felt "neglected." IMHO, Lee/Kirby's Lockjaw was a GIANT DOG with higher brain functions than the "normal" variety of canine(can you say "Krypto on steroids?"), John Byrne was re-writing history (as he did in the Man of Steel mini-series and the re-listed Superman series)while as telling a poignant tale about how some parents project their own feelings about life onto their children (not a crime to my knowledge), and Peter was re-re-writing it while telling a modern "let's pull a prank on Ben" story that Lee/Kirby periodically had Johnny and Sue pull on The Think as well as nosy neighbors in the Baxter Building(does that make THEM assholes as well?) with the added bonus of leaving open the question "Was Lockjaw in on the gag as well?" As usual, I believe that Peter left it open for the readers to decide.

Regarding Peter's "stetcon" in Captain Marvel, Peter himself has stated in his BID column that he "imagines" Rick Jones to be the typical jaded comic book fan "who's seen it all," but in this case, he's INSIDE OF THE COMIC as opposed to OUTSIDE. Not only does this illustrate how consistent Peter's interpretation of the character has been over the years, it also gives his famous Vic Chalker-type spin on "how most comic titles from THE BIG TWO tend to 'modernize' their 'origins' every generation to pull in a new audience while ignoring their old one" by adding the demented but brilliant twist of offering "the opinion of someone who was there at the time."

All I can say is "You've done it again, Peter m'man! Andy Kauffman would be envious!"

Posted by: Tony at April 16, 2005 06:23 PM

1>> I'll tell ya: in a few days, this will all be off my mind completely because it doesn't matter that much to me...but it's not a discussion I regret having. Most folks here were pretty reasonable, and I can aaaaaalmost buy the "gallows humor" notion the one guy put forward - but for the fact that it doesn't fit the honorable (if somewhat archaic) traditions of the Inhumans.

--Hey I completely understood the meaning of your original post buddy. Bringing up a real world issue to help illustrate your point made sense in that context.
I've gotta disagree about the "honorable" traditions of the Inhumans though. If Lockjaw was a deformed Inhuman, how was his treatment by the rest of the Royal Family honorable? They have *always* treated him like a pet, not an equivalent member of the family.
The prank explanation has far more elegance and allows the Royal Family to retain that honor you're speaking of while also allowing a couple of them to have a sense of humor.

Tony

Posted by: Pack at April 16, 2005 07:25 PM

What I'm waiting for is retroactive continuity about the male lead in "Gone With the Wind" discussed at a hotel where people have panel discussions and costume contests.
Y'know, a Rhett-retcon con.

Posted by: David S. at April 16, 2005 09:35 PM

With all of this talk about retroactive continuity going on, nobody mentioned that Elektra was possibly the first example of this phenomenon and TPTB at Marvel weren't annoyed in the slightest by this and Daredevil fans past-and-present didn't cry out "Where the hell did SHE come from?" I guess some ret-cons are more stylish (and profitable) than others.

Posted by: Robert Fuller at April 16, 2005 11:59 PM

"Of course, don't even get me started on the bizarre series of events involving characters like Aquaman and Namor. I mean, talk about involed continuity and backstory. I've never seen a bigger case for a wetcon in my entire life."

This made me bust out laughing. Unfortunately, I couldn't explain to the other people in the room with me why I was laughing. Even if I could, there's no way I could explain to these non-comics people why it's funny.

Posted by: Tony at April 17, 2005 03:18 AM

1>> With all of this talk about retroactive continuity going on, nobody mentioned that Elektra was possibly the first example of this phenomenon and TPTB at Marvel weren't annoyed in the slightest by this and Daredevil fans past-and-present didn't cry out "Where the hell did SHE come from?" I guess some ret-cons are more stylish (and profitable) than others.

--dude, the retcon involving Elektra occured at a time when the Internet didn't exist. Given the situation, I'm 100% certain there were fans up in arms over it, just as there are people against certain retcons today. It's just that we read how vocal people are today. Back then it was essentially letter's columns.

Posted by: Furioso2012 at April 17, 2005 03:23 AM

I have almost zero interest in X-MEN related trades (save for Clairmont-Byrne-Cockrum, Morrison & MADROX), but I would really, really like it if Marvel reprinted X-FACTOR.

Any takers?

Posted by: Pack at April 17, 2005 04:45 AM

"With all of this talk about retroactive continuity going on, nobody mentioned that Elektra was possibly the first example of this phenomenon and TPTB at Marvel weren't annoyed in the slightest by this and Daredevil fans past-and-present didn't cry out "Where the hell did SHE come from?" I guess some ret-cons are more stylish (and profitable) than others."

First off, it was *far* from the first retcon. How about DC deciding that Batman and Superman had never killed despite their earliest appearances where they did just that? Or having Professor X replaced by the Changeling when it was decided that killing Xaxier was a mistake back during the first run of X-Men? I'm sure other people would come up with lots of other examples.
I think it's as simple as this: No one minds a retcon if it's done well or for a good reason or if it simply works. Yes, inserting Stick and Elektra into Daredevil's past changes him but it doesn't *exactly* contradict what we know and it adds depth to the character. Besides, it more fills in a gray area than it changes his past.
I know that's subjective. For instance, I'm sure John Byrne believes that fans won't mind his Doom Patrol series retconning all past DP stories out of existence because it's "done well" and some will agree and some will not. But I think that's the nature of these things. There will always be fans who buy into the retcon and those who don't and the rules of thumb will probably continue to be, "Did the story that featured the retcon work? Did it take away/add something to the character that adds/takes away something that ruins the character? Does it leave the property better or worse than it was before?"

Posted by: Marionette at April 17, 2005 03:39 PM

I had never realised that Lockjaw was supposed to be anything other than a big teleporting dog so I was a little surprised to find that he had ever been written as a deformed human. It does sound like it was an interesting twist to the story in which it occured, but generally I'd consider it a bad move.

But I'd like the chance to make my own mind up, so could someone please list the specific comics under discussion here?

As far as the history of retconning goes, I can place it to at least as early as 1942. In All Star Comics #8 in Wonder Woman's first story it is said that once she leaves Paradise Island she may never return, but within months she's running up frequent flyer miles between the USA and her home.

Beat that. :p

Posted by: Ray Cornwall at April 17, 2005 06:59 PM

I, for one, liked both the original Byrne story and the Peter David followup. But, I do think that a better solution was available. Instead of Lockjaw's speech being a result of a practical joke, why not have it be made by an Inhuman who had been given the unfortunate power of being ignored by everyone? He finally overcomes his power the one time by standing near Lockjaw, saying the line attributed to the big dog. We could find this out down the line. It wouldn't have damaged the original story, and it would have made for a nice followup.

Ah well, that's why I don't write comics.

Posted by: Mike Murphy at April 17, 2005 09:32 PM

Wow, I realise that everyone has their favorite characters and some fans are continuity obsesed; but people getting upset about a Lockjaw stetcon/retcon just blows my mind.

Posted by: Dave F. at April 18, 2005 03:54 AM

Oh, all right, a few more posts...

Ray Cornwall wrote:

"Instead of Lockjaw's speech being a result of a practical joke, why not have it be made by an Inhuman who had been given the unfortunate power of being ignored by everyone? He finally overcomes his power the one time by standing near Lockjaw, saying the line attributed to the big dog. We could find this out down the line. It wouldn't have damaged the original story, and it would have made for a nice followup."

Obviously I like the original story enough that I don't want any retcon at all, and your patch doesn't quite work because Lockjaw has a final, closing line a few pages later, buuuuuut...tonally and creatively, you're very much in the ballpark of the kind of patch I think would've worked for me. Your solution would've kept any pre-established characters from looking like a-holes and even maintained something of the tragic tone of the original story. Not bad.

Lockjaw's last line, by the way, occurs as he and Ben are finally leaving the Great Refuge after everything's been settled. Ben tells Lockjaw that it's obvious that it's very painful for him to talk, but still, he has to ask why he's never spoken in all the years he's known him.

"Never had anything to say, Ben," Lockjaw responds. "Never had anything to say."

And they wink out with a teleport.

A really beautiful moment, the notion that the one time Lockjaw forced himself to speak was to save his most devoted companion, Crystal, in her greatest moment of need.

-Dave

Posted by: Dave F. at April 18, 2005 04:12 AM

"FF#66, which introduced Kree Sentry #459, had a Lee/Kirby scene where Johnny is about to kiss Crystal and Lockjaw interrupts them by "licking Johnny's face!" I don't know that many humans who would have done that, but I've personally known several dogs who have done that to draw attention to themselves when they've felt "neglected.""

Yay, someone finally answered the original question I posed! THANK YOU.

Between your response and responses I've seen on a few other boards, I've come to the conclusion that Lockjaw's past history does indeed put Byrne's shock reveal into a gray area. One could still justify it with the notion that Lockjaw's deformation also affected him mentally, such that he went on to assume more animalistic habits to suit his new body, but making that leap is probably reliant on how much one enjoys Byrne's reveal. As someone wisely noted, we accept the retcons we like, grouse about the ones we don't. For me, the story was simply so good that, yes, Lockjaw going a bit feral after the transformation is pretty much an explanation that works for me. Folks who don't like it or who're bigger fans of David's writing than I am...their mileage may vary.

Whatever the case, I still think Peter's solution was inelegant A) For reasons I've mentioned above involving the dire tone of the situation, and B) Because the supposed pranksters weren't the only Inhumans present - the entire royal family was there, Blackbolt included! Were they all in on it? Did they have a big ol' laugh afterword about how their prank subverted Inhuman tradition after putting Crystal through a living hell over it? And did the pranksters follow Ben and Lockjaw when they we leaving to account for the finale where Lockjaw speaks a second time? Did their voice-throwing somehow reflect the movements of his mouth? So many problems...

However.

Believe what you want to. There does appear to be wiggle room, and it's just as easy for me to ignore David's story as...well, as it should have been for folks to ignore Byrne's story originally rather than rewrite it.

-Dave

P.S. This is as good a place as any to say that, yes, I have problems with some of the retcons Byrne has done. I just wanted to keep the topic a little more focused.

Posted by: Dave F. at April 18, 2005 04:19 AM

"I've gotta disagree about the "honorable" traditions of the Inhumans though. If Lockjaw was a deformed Inhuman, how was his treatment by the rest of the Royal Family honorable? They have *always* treated him like a pet, not an equivalent member of the family."

It works if you accept the possibility, noted in my last post, that Lockjaw's transformation also pushed his mind in a more animalistic direction. I see him as largely becoming like a very intelligent dog in habit, finding his moments of clarity only in the most dire of situations (i.e. Crystal's baby at risk).

"The prank explanation has far more elegance and allows the Royal Family to retain that honor you're speaking of while also allowing a couple of them to have a sense of humor."

Like I've said many times during this thread: the situation during which Lockjaw spoke was simply too serious for anyone to have contemplated a practical joke. We're talking the life or death of Crystal's baby and the beginning or end of the most solemn of Inhuman traditions. Those factors and the fact that the entire Inhuman royal family would've had to have been in on the "joke" (Crystal included!)...mean the prank explanation is a flop.

-Dave

Posted by: Dave F. at April 18, 2005 04:22 AM

"Wow, I realise that everyone has their favorite characters and some fans are continuity obsesed; but people getting upset about a Lockjaw stetcon/retcon just blows my mind."

Got not particular love of Lockjaw if you can believe it - nothing beyond the fact that I've always thought all the Inhumans are pretty cool.

Nope, I just know a good story when I read it, and I've done nothing more than try to defend it. I honestly think it's one of the best stories Byrne's ever written, and he's written some doozies. It's up there with "Small Loss" in FANTASTIC FOUR, OMAC, NEXT MEN...stuff like that.

-Dave

Posted by: Robbnn at April 18, 2005 10:14 AM

How about the BABY does, indeed, have powers. The ability to cloud Inhuman minds AND super-ventriloquism (or animal possession).

Quicksilver is a jerk, pulling Thing's chain, and none are the wiser that the baby has powers... until the next story when Ben... ah well, you get the idea...

Posted by: David at April 18, 2005 01:13 PM

Also, the whole Jor-El sending his son into the past angle was how the Elseworlds "Red Son" ended, I think...

Does anyone know this for sure? And who wrote Red Son?

I just took the 'man of tomorrow' line with the fact that Kryptonians look like humans. Milestone's Icon had a different take on the last survivor.

Posted by: Peter at April 18, 2005 04:24 PM

About Superman: Red Son - Mark Millar wrote it and yes, Jor-El was actually shown as a descendant of Lex Luthor, who kinda sorta made the world a better place (the house of L, see?) and he sends Kal back to the past (which actually worked for me, tons better than Waid's Birthright version did).

I seem to remember though that Millar acknowledged in an interview that idea wasn't his. I believe it might have come from Walt Simonson but I'm not sure.

Posted by: David at April 18, 2005 05:19 PM

About Superman: Red Son - Mark Millar wrote it and yes, Jor-El was actually shown as a descendant of Lex Luthor, who kinda sorta made the world a better place (the house of L, see?) and he sends Kal back to the past (which actually worked for me, tons better than Waid's Birthright version did).

I seem to remember though that Millar acknowledged in an interview that idea wasn't his. I believe it might have come from Walt Simonson but I'm not sure.

Geek minds think alike.


Posted by: David S. at April 18, 2005 10:16 PM

"First off, it was *far* from the first retcon."

I didn't exactly say that it was the FIRST retcon. What I said that this was POSSIBLY the first example of a retcon THAT COULD POTENTIALLY RAISE CONTROVERSY IN COMIC BOOK FANDOM to the degree that it's being expressed here and on other BBSes. As was stated earlier and on Peter's BID column, DC has constantly re-written Superman's origin as well as early Superboy stories where he first travels to the 21st century to meet The Legion of Superheroes, only to find out later that they REALLY existed in the 31st century. Like the Elektra intro, I don't believe that it raised a major stink among the majority of readers, but I could be mistaken. As the first respondent to my post said, the internet didn't exist back then(perhaps that's why Harlan Ellison refer to BBSes as "yenta boards"), so the DC and Marvel Letter Pages might have filtered out the more vocal dissenters. Any comic historians want to research that possibility?

"How about DC deciding that Batman and Superman had never killed despite their earliest appearances where they did just that?"

I was under the impression that when the bad guys died in those books, it was either because they fell of the roof during the struggle with the hero(as opposed to being "pushed off," which would have been murder) or by other villains(Joe Chill, or one of the criminals involved in the Waynes' murder, told a group of thugs that he was responsible for Batman's origin and they killed him out of resentment for his also being indirectly responsible for their incarcerations as I recall). If anyone was responsible for setting the precedent for Superman taking a life, it was John Byrne in the re-listed Superman #22 where he executes three Kryptonian villains and goes through a Super-guilt trip afterwards. My chronology may be off, but I don't remember any positive or negative comments one way or the other regarding THAT retcon.

Or having Professor X replaced by the Changeling when it was decided that killing Xaxier was a mistake back during the first run of X-Men?

One of the major complaints launched about the Chris Claremont years was that there was CONSTANTLY a reset button in place when either the fans or the editors didn't like what he did or felt that something had to be done to rectify an "oversight" committed when the book was a bi-monthly and at "death's door." During several public appearances, Chris has said that he had no idea why certain decisions were made by the editors, causing the audience to laugh and applaud, creating the impression that he was just "doing what he was told to earn a paycheck." That could be the most honest explanation of all, bringing me back to "profitability."


"I think it's as simple as this: No one minds a retcon if it's done well or for a good reason or if it simply works. Yes, inserting Stick and Elektra into Daredevil's past changes him but it doesn't *exactly* contradict what we know and it adds depth to the character."

If you can ignore the Conway/Colan storylines where Matt had romantic problems with Karen Page, Natasha Romanova, etc. and how it seemed convenient to insert an "explanation" as to why he has had these problems by inserting a "love interest" that Lee/Everett and Conway/Colan didn't create but it happened during the "beginning" of his career as a crime fighter. After her "departure," Matt pines for her, but it was not even hinted at before. Convenient and profitable, nice combination.

"Besides, it more fills in a gray area than it changes his past."

I would have said that an argument could be made that it did BOTH if it weren't for her being resurrected by her "creator" for financial reasons, but that's just me.

"I know that's subjective...But I think that's the nature of these things. There will always be fans who buy into the retcon and those who don't and the rules of thumb will probably continue to be, "Did the story that featured the retcon work? Did it take away/add something to the character that adds/takes away something that ruins the character? Does it leave the property better or worse than it was before?""

Or will this make money or will it won't make money? Also, are the writers hindered by continuity or can they get a green light to divert from it or (better still) can we take steps in the story to eliminate it? I applaud Peter for doing that and NOT doing that at the same time. Another example of his enviable talent.


Posted by: scott at April 19, 2005 06:12 PM

"I seem to remember though that Millar acknowledged in an interview that idea wasn't his. I believe it might have come from Walt Simonson but I'm not sure."

It was Grant Morrison's

Posted by: Luke K. Walsh at April 19, 2005 07:36 PM

Two comments and a question:

"Stetcon" is a useful new word

Other "-cons" - maybe less useful ... but fun

Was what Lando Calrissian did in "The Empire Strikes Back" a Han-con?

Posted by: Caty Tota at August 24, 2006 06:40 PM

You guys are the 44814 best, thanks so much for the help.