Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Witless Dictionary #15--Permanent Crossover

Once again I bring you the latest installment in our seemingly never-ending series attempting to create a usable lexicon for the understanding and criticism of comics.

Kind of like TVTropes. But only done by one guy.

This time, the term that inspired this whole feature:

Permanent Crossover--Term used to describe . . .hell,every comic from DC since 2005 and every Marvel comic since 2006. To be clearer, it's the term that describes the state wherein comics lurch from one crossover to another, and the whole sorry business finally blends into a long slog wherein nothing really happens, stories never really move forward because nothing ends with any sense of finality, and the finish of every crossover is little more than a bait and switch for the next. Repeat until it all feels like you're listening to a record that skips on the same song all the time. Repeat until it all feels like you're listening to a record that skips on the same song all the time.

8 comments:

Diana Kingston-Gabai said...

Very accurate, though it's worth pointing out that there's a big difference in the execution - DC tends to make its perma-crossover all-encompassing, so that you really can't get away from it no matter what you're reading; with Marvel, I don't know if it's incompetence or genuine consideration for non-crossover fans, but a lot of regular books are allowed to either work around the crossover or just ignore it, while the relevant stories come out in adjacent miniseries. I have to say, if we must suffer Permanent Crossover, I'm much more partial to the latter approach.

Kazekage said...

The problem is, once the rot sets in, nowhere is potentially safe from the Permanent Crossover. If you;re a low-selling but consistent Marvel title there's every chance you'll get yoked into things in an effort "to boost sales," or as those who really understand it like to say, "derail everything for a hot-shot boost."

Marvel's idea of allowing people workarounds or the option to ignore is the best of all possible solutions, but as with nuclear war, the winning move is not to play in the first place. :)

Diana Kingston-Gabai said...

That rarely happens; even something like "Runaways" only ties in through miniseries that don't actually affect the ongoing series at all.

Ah, but then we wouldn't be able to enjoy the schadenfreude of Marvel flapping about trying to clean up its latest fubar. :)

Kazekage said...

. . .the upshot of which is, in "Runaways'" case, that it barely comes out at all, so it's a bit of a trade-off, innit?

True, but I've gotten so weary and so cynical about the ongoing pattern of ill-advised decision/hastily conceived fix that doesn't fix anything/further convolution of same (etc.), even that has lost its charm for me, alas.

Diana Kingston-Gabai said...

I suppose, though in theory you wouldn't notice that if you were only reading the trades.

I know what you mean, I've been feeling the same way lately. Not quite sure what I'll do about that...

Kazekage said...

Theoretically--although some of it in some trades I've paged through lately still trickles in a bit.

Well, when I get in states like this, I try to go back to my own stuff. The example I use is Bruce Lee developing Jeet Kune Do in an effort to fix all the problems he found in existing martial art styles.

Facetious, I know. :)

Diana Kingston-Gabai said...

But oddly compelling... :D

Kazekage said...

I'm always up for spurious, if not impertinent, metaphor.