THE REAL BATMAN CHRONOLOGY PROJECT BLOG

Links and Ramblings of the Week

No, this probably isn't the start of an ongoing new weekly post in spite of its title (simply because I'm much to busy to do it every week). BUT who knows, I'll try my damnedest to make it happen!

Here are some wonderful and informative web links this week, each about continuity—continuity with a CAPITAL C! Definitely all food for thought. And also a short rambling about stuff going on in the world of comic books (outside of the DC Bat-verse).

The DCnU 52: One Year Later by Kent G. Hare

Ask Chris: Continuity and You by Chris Sims

New 52 Continuity : It Ain't That Bad! @ Last of the Famous International Fanboys

I don't usually talk about anything other than Batman-related things on here, but let's take a stroll off the beaten path for a hot second, shall we? My favorite Marvel book (currently and for quite some time now) is Rick Remender's Uncanny X-Force. I highly recommend it—a book where every issue counts to the umpteenth degree and the stakes are always high. I never thought I'd be so over-the-moon about an X book again. It's been years since I've liked any X book. In my humble opinion, the entire concept of the X-characters and mutants in general is a highly flawed and, dare I say it, lame concept. The idea of a world of mutants in the Marvel U has been a lame idea for the past thirty years (in spite of some really great flashes of storytelling and art here and there). What do I mean exactly? Well, Aaron Diaz sums it up quite perfectly:

“Mutations [should] have a clear sci-fi foundation rather than just being random superpowers. Mutants being “the next stage in human evolution” was biologically dubious in the 60s, and now it’s just corny. Additionally, I think the X-Men premise only really makes sense in a setting without other superheroes.”

I agree wholeheartedly. Why have mutants when ostensibly Captain America, Spider-Man, and so many others are basically mutants too? I understand that mutants are born with powers whereas Cap and Spidey were not, but really other than that, how are they any different? Plus, there are plenty of characters in the Marvel U that were born with powers, and yet are not mutants, right?

I think one of the reasons Uncanny X-Force works so well is because its a genuine multiverse book. While it doesn't ignore the mutant dilemma or mutant history linked to overall Marvel continuity, it deals more with the fact that Wolverine, Deadpool, Fantomex (RIP!), Psylocke, AOA Nightcrawler, et al exist in the bountiful superhero world that is the great Marvel multiverse. This isn't your insular mutant X book that lives outside of the rest of the Marvel multiverse, as much of the X-verse has done for decades. Remender is really playing in the multiversial sandbox rather than limiting himself to the mutants-only sandbox. And the end result is an inspired, intense, touching, and unique X title the likes of which we haven't seen before.

Dead Links (to the Past)

I was recently browsing the amazing Mikel Midnight's Cosmology Compendium, which from the looks of it hasn't been updated in nearly a decade. Despite the cobwebs growing on the site, Midnight offers a still-relevant list of links to various comic book timeline projects (for the most part). However, I was struck by the number of dead links, not so much by how many there were, but by the idea that there was apparently a flourishing geekdom revolving around the desire to chronologically document the multiverse around the late 90s and early 2000s. The links that actually still connect to a destination on the Internet are mostly no-frills Geocities and Yahoo sites, evidence of the time period in which they were spawned.

But whatever happened to these internauts obsessed with Yahoo message boards, Fanzing, and "Comments on a Finite Number of Earths" by Lou Mougin and Mark Waid? I have a theory that even the most dedicated chronology nerds were frustrated with the Modern Age as it progressed through the 2000s with soft reboots that didn't stick (Zero Hour), multiple Crises, and Elseworlds tales galore no longer linked to specific numbered or lettered Earths. Likewise, the fun labyrinthine nature of the multiverse, both pre-original Crisis and immediately afterward, must have been an exciting moment for anyone documenting its history and changes. But as that faded into the past and the Modern Age really began to take a hold as the one solid New Earth, I can imagine people getting bummed that all of their hard work and cataloguing was becoming obsolete, in a sense, becoming tomes of unpublished information shelved forever only to collect dust until the host sites faded, the renewals lapsed, or the mirrors cracked. I mean, just look at some of these sites that no longer exist, the names themselves are great: "DC Timeline Constructors," "Else-Aquaman," "Elseworlds.net," Les Elseworlds du Batman," "Alternate Robins," "Superman's Imaginary Costumes," "Temporal Paradoxes in Science Fiction," "The Wonder Woman Pages," "The Quarter Bin: Superheroes in the Age of Agnew," and many more. Of course there are a bunch of links that do still work, but most of these sites haven't been touched in ages. Why is it that the seemingly most-dedicated would-be scholars of the field all gave up over a decade ago, never to return? Don't get me wrong, if you look at my links page I've included dozens of current up-to-date and ongoing websites that deal with comic book history and historiography. But are older comic book-heads really so jaded about the current product that they don't have an interest in the New 52? Or how AvX affects the greater 616? Hehe, maybe I can understand why, now that I think about it. Anyway, this is just an observation, not a call to arms or a state of the industry address. It's also possible that this steam-of-consciousness post isn't even really saying much (and that's fine too)! What do y'all think?

An Eight Year New 52 After All?

I was reading David Uzumeri's annotations of Batman Incorporated Vol. 2 #2 and it struck me—not the information particularly, since I'd read it in the Mindless Ones annotations of the same issue earlier—not the information but the numbers.

"Ra's [Al Ghul] and Melisande are at a concert greatly reminiscent of the Live Aid charity show from July 13, 1985—which would make Talia roughly twenty-six-years-old, which would make her somewhat age-appropriate for the about-thirty-ish Batman currently residing in the New 52.

. . .

Melisande talks about Neptune being in Capricorn, which would also date this page (and Talia's birth) as taking place between 1984 and 1997."

Thus, if we go by a twelve-year timeline that starts in 2001 (and is in the current year 2012) then that means Bruce impregnates Talia, who is supposedly attending university at the time, at age sixteen or seventeen! Now I'm not about to enter into a debate about legality, foreign law, etc. but I'm fairly certain that DC did not draft a new world where Bruce is tantamount to a child predator.

However, one can still work with a twelve-year timeline and have Bruce engage with Talia at a more legal age of eighteen if the Saga of Ra's Al Ghul stuff occurs in Year Two (2002) instead of Year One (2001). Here's the problem with that situation, though: It throws off Damian's age—he wouldn't have turned ten in 2011, he'd have turned nine. And if Damian's age is thrown off then that means the idea that he is a biological age of ten but actually younger is definitively true. If that is indeed true, then there is no reason not to go with the shorter seven or eight year timeline that starts in 2005.

Of course if we do go with the latter, then what I've dreaded is unfortunately true: Damian is much younger and his age referred to in the comics (turned ten in 2011) is merely his biological age, not how long he has actually lived. Here's what I'm thinking it might look like—and bear in mind the horde of zero issues coming out soon might help shape things.

YEAR ONE (2005)

-The Saga of Ra's Al Ghul
-Damian conceived
-Catwoman debuts
-Hugo Strange debuts
-Batman pays tribute to parents in Crime Alley
-Batman vs. The Mad Monk
-Bruce officially returns to Gotham (referenced in Annual #1)
-Joker debuts
-Kathy Kane debuts as Bat-Woman

YEAR TWO (2006)
-Bruce meets Victor Fries (from Annual #1)
-Kathy Kane retires, her relationship with Bruce goes cold
-Talia's relationship with Bruce goes cold
-Damian born in secret; aging sped-up via genetic engineering
-Kathy Kane fakes death
-The Phantasm debuts
-Batman collects Batcave trophies
-Mr. Freeze debuts (from Annual #1)
-Batman pays tribute to parents in Crime Alley
-Justice League debuts (from Justice League #1-6)
-Batman fights a Talon (from flashback in Dark Knight #9)
-Dick Grayson becomes Robin
-Batman begins working with Gordon, Bullock, and Dent
-David Graves publishes Justice League: Gods Among Men
-Action Comics #10-12

YEAR THREE—YEAR EIGHT (2007-2012)

exactly the same as the current YEAR SEVEN through YEAR TWELVE

So there you have it. Of course there are other variations of this that could work, based upon the information that we currently have. Joker could even debut before the Saga of Ra's Al Ghul and Damian's conception. But we'll see what happens with the zero issues before I make any changes on the website. Until then I will wait patiently.

—Collin C.

Answers to Newsarama's "Lingering Questions"

Alan Kistler, over at Newsarama, has posted an insightful article entitled, "One Year Later: 10 Lingering Questions About The New 52". These questions are definitely apropos. At this point it is difficult to know resolutely what the honchos at DC have in store for their universes. I thought it would be interesting and beneficial to actually go ahead and answer Kistler's questions (as best I can, using the information provided in the New 52 issues thus far).

1. SHOULD WE IGNORE PARTS OF BATMAN INCORPORATED?

The short answer is YES—and not only parts, but the entire series! To explain my answer I will respond to each of Kistler's remarks. Kistler says, "[The] Leviathan Strikes one-shot is said to take place months before all the new issue #1's, explaining why Dick Grayson has not yet returned to his Nightwing identity and why Barbara Gordon still requires a wheelchair. In fact, Barbara's physical state means that parts of Batman Incorporated need to take place at least 6 months before Batgirl #1." I have to disagree with this statement because in the New 52 we shouldn't assume that Oracle was a part of Batman Inc—in fact, it is my belief that Oracle never even existed in the New 52. Furthermore, The Leviathan Strikes! one-shot, based upon the dialogue and events going on—including the formation of the "Dead Heroes Club"—places the skeleton framework of events from Leviathan Strikes! as taking place right before Batman Incorporated Vol. 2 #1. Kistler then extrapolates, "[DC] creators remark[ed] at San Diego Comic-Con that Stephanie was not a Robin, yet Batman Incorporated clearly says that this part of her history remains true." This is yet another reason to ignore Batman Incorporated from the Modern Age. Anything involving Stephanie has been wiped clean—clearly she wasn't referenced at all in Batman Incorporated Vol. 2 #1. Sorry, Spoiler fans. Kistler then pontificates, "And while we're told in the pages of Justice League that the team has not had any new members in the five years since it formed, Batman Incorporated Vol. 2 #1 includes remarks of Metamorpho's 'Justice League days.' Was he a member but only for a short time now? Was he just an associate or consultant on a few cases?" I added my response to this conundrum in Year Six of the New Age on my chronology. We must infer that Metamorpho was indeed, as Kistler theorizes, simply an associate, trainee, or consultant with the team. So, in summation, it is my belief that all of Batman Incorporated, including Leviathan Strikes!, is non-canon in the New 52. Only the things that are specifically flashed-back-to or referenced in the New 52 should be considered canon.

2. WHAT IS N.O.W.H.E.R.E.?

Okay, I can't really answer this one. As Kistler reminds us, Lobdell said that Superboy's Cadmus origins and his pre-Young Justice adventures would still be in continuity in the New 52. Of course, Superboy's origins are clearly linked not to Cadmus, and to NOWHERE instead. And furthermore, it appears as if his pre-Young Justice adventures have not occurred. So, I don't know what NOWHERE is, but I do know that, again, we must ignore Superboy's past from the Modern Age, except where things are flashed-back-to or specifically referenced in the New Age.

3. WHO KILLED ALEX DEWITT?

We don't know yet! It isn't Major Force anymore. Maybe she never got thrown in the fridge after all?

4. HOW LONG HAS BATMAN BEEN OPERATING?

Of course, this is the very purpose of my project, so I have an answer. Kistler weighs in on the subject, stating, "If we presume that Dick Grayson became the original Robin after Superman's debut but before the formation of the Justice League, then Batman was probably operating for at least three or four years earlier (taking into account his solo adventures and the previous timeline). So let's say Batman has been around for nine years. Well, his son Damian Wayne is 10. When exactly did Batman meet Ra's al Ghul and Damian's mother Talia in the new reality? Before he was ever Batman?" Based upon that statement, Kistler and I pretty much agree. Batman has been around for 9 years. And Batman was operating for three years when Robin debuts and the Justice League forms—although, Kistler believes that Robin came first, and then the JL whereas I have it the other way around. Either way, they both happen around the same time, so they could very well be interchangeable. And in regard to the Al Ghuls, as I have on my chronology, Bruce definitely meets them (and conceives Damian) before becoming Batman. Kistler also addresses the James Gordon Junior problem—an issue that I also address in my chronology. Kistler says, "Another problem arises when you consider that Batman's origin is still said to be Batman: Year One. But if that story features the birth of James Gordon Jr., then it must take place almost 20 years ago since James seems to currently be in his late teens, if not older." My obvious answer to this is that Batman: Year One is non-canon in the New 52. I know there was a one panel flashback to an image from Batman: Year One in one of Snyder's books, but that doesn't make the entirety of Miller's seminal tale canon. Clearly, James Junior was born, as Kistler reminds us, around 18 to 20 years ago, which is proof positive that Year One has been significantly altered to the point of non-recognition.

5. WHAT'S THE DEAL WITH THE GORDON FAMILY?

The New 52 Gordon family tree is quite different (and more simplified) than the previous incarnation. Kistler asks, "What happened to Sarah Essen? Did she never reunite with Jim in the new reality? Did they reunite but never marry? And if Babs/Batgirl is the biological daughter of Jim Gordon and Barbara Gordon, then that brings us back to wondering about the timeline and continuity of Batman: Year One and who that baby is that is being born, and is said to be Jim's first child." My response to these remarks is, again, Miller's Batman: Year One is now non-canon! Sarah Essen never existed, there was no baby born in Year One. Babs' mom left on her own accord. Babs' biological parents are Barbara and James Gordon.

6. WHERE DOES WONDER WOMAN THINK KIDS COME FROM?

The mythology behind the Amazons has changed drastically, causing many questions and much controversy alike. Kistler answers this query with, "There may be a good explanation planned, but we haven't heard it yet." I concur.

7. WAS THERE ANOTHER TALKING GORILLA?

This one is about how in Flash, Barry is shocked upon meeting Gorilla Grodd and the talking gorillas of Gorilla City, yet in the "five years ago" origin story for the Justice League, he mentions having already fought with a talking gorilla. In my humble opinion, this is probably a miscommunication or continuity snafu that someone in editorial missed. There is so much going on, a single line of dialogue that is incorrect is bound to slip through the cracks, right? Or "there may be a good explanation planned, but we haven't heard it yet."

8. WHO ARE THE TRINITY OF SIN?

This is less of a continuity question and more of a "I wonder where this story is heading" question. But Kistler does add an addendum of additional queries at the end, which include: "If the Phantom Stranger and Pandora are aware that this reality has been altered, does that open the door for the old universes to come back? Why reboot all of history if you're going to mention that this isn't how things used to be? Are we leading to a new Crisis?" I hope we aren't heading to another Crisis. The New 52 is about new, fresh concepts, and not rehashing the old. The Trinity's mention of old timelines and alternate universes hopefully will lead toward something unique and thrilling, and possibly the crossover of worlds, but another Crisis we surely don't need.

9. WHAT MAJOR EVENTS TRULY HAPPENED?

Kistler talks about how Blackest Night, Batman's Omega time displacement, the destruction of Coast City, and other things have been mentioned as definitively happening in the New 52, but is confused as to how these things can be since they contradict so much of the New 52 mythos. Not to sound like a broken record, but what we need to remember is that just because a major Modern Age event is referenced in the New 52, it doesn't mean that that event occurred exactly as it did originally. For all we know, Batman was never involved in Blackest Night. Obviously, none of the JSA members were involved since they now live on another Earth and have completely revamped backgrounds. Likewise, the destruction of Coast City no longer happened in conjunction with the Death and Return of Superman story anymore. I can't stress this enough: The old tales from before Flashpoint are now non-canon reference materials. Everything has changed.

10. WHERE IS JOKER?

Again, this one is more of a "what is in store?" question rather than a continuity based question. Snyder is at the helm, as Kistler excitedly mentions, so anything could happen. I'm also excited to see how this plays out. It's pretty cool (and a strong move) to hold off on using arguably your biggest supervillain draw for over a full real-life calender year. It's a great way to significantly increase the impact of Joker's return and also demonstrates the New 52 as a omniverse where things have been planned well in advance by its architects.

(My Take on) The State of Superhero Comic Criticism

I've been thinking about the state of the comic book industry, rather I should say, the state of the superhero comic book industry, which unfortunately gets often confused with other very different graphic sequential media such as manga, comix, indie cartoons, etc... Right now, the industry as a whole is a shell of its former self. Sales are dwindling in spite of the fact that the characters portrayed in the stories are the highest grossing characters in cinema today and in film history. Tim Marchman recently wrote an review in the Wall Street Journal that tangentially lambasted superhero comics' inability to draw money these days, stating that DC and Marvel have "given up on the mass audience" choosing instead to produce works that are "for sale not in a real bookstore but in a specialty shop, [...] clumsily drawn, poorly written, and incomprehensible to anyone not steeped in years of arcane mythology."

Of course, the "clumsy" drawings and "poor" writing are a matter of Marchman's own opinion. The rest seems to be more objective, but can be addressed nevertheless. DC and Marvel have always been companies designed first and foremost to make money by selling comics. However, the Big Two have never really catered to a mass audience, in spite of this fact. Comics have always been a niche market, hence the niche "specialty stores." Superhero comics cannot and should never be compared to any other graphic works in the indie realm, such as stuff by Chris Ware, Daniel Clowes, or anything that can be found at the Brooklyn Comics and Graphics Festival or Stumptown Comics Fest. However, they often are compared to these things in criticisms, by intelligent writers and bloggers like Marchman and Matt Seneca, to cite two recent examples.

Seneca, who always has put a smile on my face with his astute and brilliant commentary, recently ran-down Grant Morrison (a former hero of his) due to his corporate nature, pretentiousness, self-promotion, and unoriginality, among other complaints. Seneca acknowledges that Morrison never cared to work outside of the confines of the corporate Big Two structure, despite having promoted himself for years as an alternative to those two companies, stating, "Morrison capitalizes on a culture that discourages innovation and progress by telling a captive audience that his own staunchly unadventurous work represents those very values." Morrison's work is indeed "unadventurous" when compared with the groundbreaking art created by Ware, Clowes, the Hernandez brothers, Seth, etc... or the wonderful stuff seen in various web comics or in Kramers Ergot. Of course, Seneca's diatribe about Morrison is spot-on and I would agree with him wholeheartedly except for one important thing: Morrison (who was never a visual artist himself, a fact we should not forget) should never have been and still shouldn't be regarded as being in the same league as indie cartoonists and comix authors that operate in a completely different world. I'm not saying Morrison is better or worse; I'm simply saying that what Morrison does is incomparable to what, say Clowes, does. And what Morrison does for mainstream superhero comics, he does very well. And that is writing the best possible material he can within the constraints of the medium. I think Seneca would love if indie cartoonism was injected into superhero comics (or replaced in entirely). Hell, I'd enjoy it too to a certain extent, but what I'm emphasizing is that the two should never even be discussed in the same dialogue. I agree, guys like Morrison, Didio, Queseda, Bendis, Johns, Millar, Miller, et al have been boosting each others' egos for the past decade and really jerking each other off and patting each other on the back when it comes to guiding the course of comics universes—and also at the expense of guys like Siegel, Shuster, Kirby, and Moore. (The sheer egotism of MorrisonCon really grosses me out too.) But, to bring us full-circle back to Marchman's commentary, the world of superhero comics thrives because it is about "arcane mythology" and the constraints associated with the Big Two universes. Unlike Marchman's view of this, my view is that obsession with continuity is a good thing. Marchman also fails to note in his article that DC did just reboot its whole line, essentially paving the way for new readership (although, admittedly, the reboot has been only a little effective as a marketing strategy).

It bums me out that Marchman and Seneca's comments, while obviously very different, both seem to attack superhero comics from the standpoint of an outsider (Marchman as the Marvel/DC movie fan that cannot comprehend why superhero comics fail in comparison to the flicks and Seneca as the jaded indie cartoonist that cannot comprehend why superhero comics don't mirror indie cartoons). Marchman is the actual outsider whereas Seneca is a self-exiled expatriate. Both writers are very articulate and smart in their own ways, and I geek out when anyone can write scholarly about superhero comics, but I wish the smartest minds on the web weren't so down on the genre. These guys (and many bright others) feel that the industry owes them something that it has failed to deliver.

I should stress that I have the same complaints and concerns as Marchman, Seneca, and a ton of others. Not to mention, sales really are down, DC and Marvel shit on their creators, they are controlled by corporate mega-conglomerates, and sometimes the stories/art are subpar or low-brow. These items alone make me incredibly frustrated with the industry. However, I love comics, especially superhero comics. And it's time for positivity in regard to superhero comics. I'm not about to write-off Morrison because he's an ego-maniac who never "saved" comics by propelling them into a new century of uniqueness. Morrison was never supposed to do that, and I don't think he wants to. Alan Moore realized he never was going to be able to "save comics," so he left the industry. I commend both Morrison and Moore for doing what they did and currently do now.

Again, I can't say it enough, I love superhero comics. They revolve around a niche market, and sometimes, as I've said above, they are really bad and poorly drawn. But that just makes me love them even more. And the heavy hand of the editor/publisher can be really damn annoying, but it affects continuity and the "arcane mythology" of the universes in ways that are so unpredictable or so incredibly predictable that I can't help but delve into them wholeheartedly. Often, the disappointment and failure of a superhero arc can be just as interesting as something "successful." In the end, for better or worse, I'm just glad that the superhero comic exists as its own genre. It's not cinema and it ain't indie comix or alternative cartoons; it will never make the money that movies make or earn the respect that indie comix receive. And I'm fine with that. I just wish writers and bloggers would realize that as well. The time to criticize mainstream superhero comics is definitely here and now, but the comparisons that have been drawn as of late in order to bring down the genre don't make much sense to me.

Treading in an Uncharted Age

I've often posed the question of what the current "age" of comics should be called. For simplicity's sake, I usually refer to contemporary comics as the "New Age"--an umbrella term for DC's New 52 and Marvel's Bendis-shaped continuity that exist today.

Greg Burgas, at Comic Book Resources, has an interesting post about this topic that I thought was worth sharing.

http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2012/05/05/what-should-we-call-this-era-of-comics/

Matt Wilson was able to recently ask a bunch of comic book scholars what they thought about this very question: To read their responses, click on the following link:

http://www.comicsalliance.com/2012/08/21/thought-bubble-4-age-comics-silver-age-golden-age-prismatic-age/