All of the quotes and conversational exchanges which follow are from the same public online "message board"; set up on the behalf of (and visited daily by) one big-name "fan favorite" comics writer/artist, in particular.

See if you can guess who it is, before we reach the end.

.

FAN: "Most authors prefer to write stories where characters change and grow, but the suits tend to resist any change in a cash cow."

PRO: "First let’s remember what we’re talking about here. Comics are not 'stories' in the sense of 'writers who want their characters to grow'. Comics are serial fiction, and like most such, aging of characters simply does not happen. All the stories happen 'now', and readers who cannot accept that are rather missing the point.

"So, no, Spider-Man should not 'grow'. Should never have 'grown', in fact. He should still be a nerdy high school kid. Maybe then he would have more readers."

["CHEEKS HINT" #1: the comics professional speaking, in this instance, is no stranger, himself, to the SPIDER-MAN mythos.]

FAN: "Yes, that explains why they're just reshooting Leave It To Beaver scripts and it's a hit show. Uh huh. Society never changes, the comic audience hasn't changed, so comics should remain as they were 30 years ago. Oooo-K, [Pro]...whatever you say."

PRO: "Is there anything as sad as someone who professes himself to be a 'writer' completely missing the point?

"Superman. Batman. Couple of comic characters. Perhaps you've heard of them. First one was introduced in 1938, second in 1939. Both the same age now as they were the day they appeared. Same jobs. Same gigs. Same background characters.

"Yep. Absolutely impossible to maintain a comic book series unless the characters age. Anything else would be 'unnatural'.

"Or possibly: fiction.

"This brings out a point I have argued many times in the past. Very few (if any) of the people we see on these boards demanding 'realistically aging' characters were there in 1938, 1939, 1940, etc, when so many of these characters appeared. Heck, very few were even there in the early '60's (as readers, anyway) when the Marvel Age began. When they demand that the characters 'age realistically' they almost always mean 'since I started reading'.

"Realism, then... but only the 'correct' realism."

["CHEEKS HINT" #2: the same comics professional holding forth, in this instance, has also worked on both the SUPERMAN and BATMAN titles, as well.]

I love this next one.

I love it a whole lot, actually.

PRO: "And here we neatly sum up what I see as the inherent selfishness in the demands of these people that the characters 'grow and change'. Apparently they were introduced to characters they thought were pretty neat at the time -- but they do not want others to have the same pleasure. That would interfere with their own 'enjoyment' of the comics!"

[By God... I will bear this man's love child, upon request. I bloody will!]

PRO: "Important, too, to remember that [DC Comics'] CRISIS [ON INFINITE EARTHS] was made 'necessary' by just this 'realistic' mentality."

[I think I can actually feel myself... you know... imprinting on this man. Like a baby gosling, or something.]

PRO: "This takes us into the 'why writers go grey' area again. I am constantly amazed, as I peruse these boards, by the things people think of as 'the character'. So many times it seems people confuse the background with the foreground, as it were. Confuse the costume with the man inside it.

"Batman could go into space and become a fighter in the Rebel Wars of Patooeyne, and it would be an undeniable departure from the traditional portrayal of the character (though not so much, if it were still 1963!!), but: if he still ACTED like Batman, he would still BE Batman. The problem with what some describe as 'growth' is that the characters cease to be themselves."

["CHEEKS HINT" #3: the comics professional still speaking, here, has also collaborated with noted science fiction craftsman and award-winning essayist Harlan Ellison.]

FAN: "This is what seems wrong with the way comics are made. The character learns nothing. He goes through it again and again with no memory or implication of the time passed. And if the character is changed, it is promptly changed back before too long. I dont claim to say I know how to write a story, or what is good or bad. I am just saying in my opinion couldn't comics be effective and entertaining in a linear mode that moves forward instead of nowhere ?"

PRO: "Answer your own question: how long have you been reading comics? In that time, how much 'growth' was there? Were you entertained?

"Personally, I have been vastly entertained by comics for most of the last 40-odd years, and in that time very few of them have shown much in the way of aging, though most of them have changed considerably from the days I started reading. (I'll cite Superman and Batman again. These are not the same characters they were when I first encountered them in 1956 -- and yet, in context, we are asked to believe they are precisely the same characters.)

"To say that comics are not entertaining because of an element which has NEVER been important in the story structure, is to say baseball games would be more entertaining if they were played on skiis. When we go to see a baseball game, we know what it is we are going to see, and that is why we go. Why should the 'rules' be any different for comics?"

[Only one more quote left to go. Last call for wagers at this particular roulette table. All bets are final.]

PRO: "Comics are not movies, or novels, or TV shows. They are not even comic strips. They are a unique form, with a unique set of rules. Anyone who doesn't want to play by those rules should go find another game."

Let's review our highlight reel, before unmasking our online Mystery Man:

1.) "Very few (if any) of the people we see on these boards demanding 'realistically aging' characters were there in 1938, 1939, 1940, etc, when so many of these characters appeared. Heck, very few were even there in the early '60's (as readers, anyway) when the Marvel Age began. When they demand that the characters 'age realistically' they almost always mean 'since I started reading'.

"Realism, then, but only the 'correct' realism."

2.) "And here we neatly sum up what I see as the inherent selfishness in the demands of these people that the characters 'grow and change'. Apparently they were introduced to characters they thought were pretty neat at the time -- but they do not want others to have the same pleasure. That would interfere with their own 'enjoyment' of the comics!

3.) "Important, too, to remember that [DC Comics'] CRISIS [ON INFINITE EARTHS] was made 'necessary' by just this 'realistic' mentality.

Ladies and Gentlemen: I give you...

... John Byrne?!?

You betcha by golly wow. The very same John Byrne (I hasten to add) who once practically all but lived for this "continuity" folderol. The very same John L. Byrne who (you may remember) rearranged more than a few of the storytelling deck chairs -- all in the service of slavish adherence to "continuity," mind -- on the U.S.S. Superman, back in the 1980's.

I can't even pretend to fathom either the nature or extent of whatever life-altering experience might have wrought such a welcome change in auctorial point- of-view as this, in a man who was once the industry's leading poster child for the Kontinuity, Kontinuity, Uber Alles fife-and- drum corps...

... but: I'm certainly pleased and ecstatic (and I say this without even a trace of sarcasm) to see such a doughty comics craftsman so enthusiastically laying track on the side of the angels, in this particular.

You will recall that we earlier noted (back on Page One of this very essay, in fact) how the fannish sentiment for (and insistence upon) "continuity"; "aging"; and "realism" in their increasingly watery four-color fare is (and, I suspect, shall continue to be) at growing odds with the more clear-eyed fiscal and storytelling assessments of those who only make their livings in this benighted industry, after all.

"And here we neatly sum up what I see as the inherent selfishness in the demands of these people that the characters 'grow and change'."

"Realism, then, but only the 'correct' realism."

"Important, too, to remember that [DC Comics'] CRISIS [ON INFINITE EARTHS] was made 'necessary' by just this 'realistic' mentality."

Welcome to the front lines, Mr. Byrne.

Oh... that continual roar of musketry, across the way...?

Don't worry about it. It's just the soldiers for the other side.

They're bound and determined, you see, to fire off every last bullet in their arsenals.

Until all their toes are gone.

Let's see how the timely observations of both comics retailer and essayist Joe Linehan AND writer/artist John Byrne tie together, then, with a sudden, recent attack of Common Sense on the part of DC Comics, Inc...

... and how the "patient," in this instance, decided (ultimately) to opt for the disabling carcinoma, rather than the (potentially) life-saving chemo-therapy.

Page Three: dead ahead.

"The Operation Was a Miracle of Modern Science...": PAGE ONE

"The Operation Was a Miracle of Modern Science...": PAGE THREE

"The Operation Was a Miracle of Modern Science...": PAGE FOUR

"The Operation Was a Miracle of Modern Science...": PAGE FIVE