Mark D. White

After the all-but-worthless "news" conference that Geoff Johns and Jim Lee held in LA last weekend, this morning brings the indefatigable* Vaneta Rogers' revealing interview with Bob Harras and Eddie Berganza, in which they are actually quite forthcoming about various details of the DC relaunch.

This passage in particular stands out (it's somewhat long, but I think it's worth it):

Nrama: We've been speaking with creators from different offices and families, and their approach seems to vary. The Batman writers seem to be going out of their way to stress how things aren’t going to be changing that much, but conversely, the Superman titles seem to be going through a radical change. Is there an over-arching editorial edict, or are the “rules” what individual editors and writers want them to be?

Harras: I think there's an overarching discussion. This was a well-thought-out approach to all our characters across the line. But we also looked at events that happened in the past that we wanted to incorporate into current storylines that were going to be part and parcel into our ongoing stories.

So we really did take everything very seriously and looked at big events like Blackest Night and Brightest Day, and wanted to make sure those stayed a part of our stories.

Berganza: Right. The ones that really impacted people, like Death in the Family and Killing Joke. The ones that even people outside regular comic readers know. People know something happened to Barbara Gordon, that the Joker shot her. That counts.

Harras: So we looked at all these characters and really said what we're going to weave in and what we're going keep and what we're going to move forward on.

Nrama: So to clarify, the storylines you've mention, like the Killing Joke and Death in the Family, are definitely part of history going forward?

Harras: Yes, and in fact, they're even important starting points for some of the storylines we have.

Nrama: But that doesn't mean other stories didn't happen, right?

Harras: Correct.

…

Nrama: How were these stories chosen? Because of important deaths? Or collections? Or because they were part of the upcoming stories?

Harras: We're taking this September event very seriously. We looked at what was important to our characters, what we thought were pivotal moments in their lives and could actually make more drama going forward. What really went on was a very comprehensive look at their histories, and Eddie and his team compiled a timeline for our history going forward, and everything that we thought was integral and important was part of that.

Berganza: It was all about the character. It wasn't so much, "what did this event do?" but "what did it do to the individuals?" If we got more story out of it, then definitely, that's what we were definitely going for. For instance, with Killing Joke, that event in the Bat-family is really crucial to what we're doing.

I like their approach, but it seems they're trying to have their cake and eat it too–they want to keep important and treasured continuity, but still make the stories from September on accessible to new readers. But either the continuity is referenced or not–and if they're confident they can tell approachable stories while still retaining a good chunk of existing continuity, then why the big relaunch at all? Why couldn't they just give everyone an editorial mandate that stories must be more character-driven and less mired in continuity, without wiping out that continuity or restructuring the entire universe (e.g., possibly removing the Golden Age altogether)?

In fact, Berganza suggests that this very approach worked before:

We respect continuity, but I think even the fans will admit that once you get too mired in continuity, you start getting away from what's essential, which is character. If you look at what Geoff Johns has done with each time he relaunches a book, you see that it becomes very focused on character, and you don't get into questions about whether the Green Lantern fought this menace or this other menace, or where did evil start or the Starlings. You get more into the core of the character. And I think people have reacted very well to that. I think that's a fine model, where it doesn't get mired in continuity.

Then why didn't they just continue to do that? The only answer seems to be the huge publicity they got from the relaunch–and I do not want to minimize the value of that, if they can get a nice bump in sales from it.

It just seems like an increasingly intricate balancing act: attracting new readers by promising more approachable and character-driven stories, while reassuring longtime fans that their beloved continuity beats won't be forgotten, but just pushed to the background. Let's hope they can pull it off…

* I maintain this word is one of the most difficult to say clearly, especially when you and your audiobook producer descind into giggle fits. So I'm trying to "own" it…