It sort of worked that way in the past. In the era before Crisis most stories could be enjoyed as stand alone stories. I remember picking up Whitman versions of a couple Superman stories. They Amazo and Superman and the Justice League fighting it out. Amazo had his GL ring and his WW lasso (which apparently does not compell obedience any longer, because otherwise Maxie's not such a big problem) and I didn't think "Where are the Guardian or the Greek Gods to take care of this guy. Superman had to break out the Supermobile to take him on.

(Actually, was that actually a story or am I making that up?)

I've got an even better idea. When Bill Mantlo, or Gail Simone, or Grant Morrison starts writing Superman--they don't, and they write something NEW instead! No franchises, no crossovers, no multiverse, just writers writing their own stories with their own characters. I realize that it's a radical idea which has never been tried anywhere except pretty much every artistic medium other than US superhero comic books, but maybe, just maybe, it would work.

Mixed vibes. I agree that it would be nice to see some creativity, but I like reading Superman stories.

To get rid of continuity would be to get rid of what brings people back to comics. You buy because you want to see where the characters go. I think re-using Batman to tell a story of greed and then later use his background to tell a story of loss and then a story of, I don't know, gymnastics is what makes old warhorse comics popular. Some readers enjoy the comfort of reading a story with a familiar character being used in new ways or give a new view of an older story. Sometimes it works (Superman for All Seasons) and sometimes not (Dark Knight Strikes Back, IMHO) but the fact that the author didn't have to spend pages explaining who he is, why he dresses like a bat, why he hates the joker, etc. allows a writer to get right to the meat of the story.

I love some of the new superhero properties out there (Invincible, Powers (pre-ICON), etc.) but I still keep an eye out for a new spin on X-Men (Whedon's recent stuff) or Batman (well, nothing of late...but I am still looking!).

What about getting rid of "Crisis" like reboots and just start a new line like the "Ultimate" line? Was that a more elegant solution vs. trying to reboot the existing line? Will DC try this? Have they and I missed it?

"The basics that everyone knows about the character" is continuity. I think what you're saying, Matt, is that you don't want Bill Mantlo to be hamstrung because 7 years ago, Cary Bates did a story in which Superman says he doesn't like pickled herring, but Mantlo has a greta idea for a story involving Superman's love of pickled herring. That's all well and good, but there's some kid out there who hates pickled herring and really identified with that Bates story. Once you start down the road of saying "This is a basic, this isn't," it's tough to draw the line.

This isn't to say it can't be done, and it isn't to say it shouldn't be done. In an early issue of Thor, Don Blake built an android. A fully functioning, walking, talking android. Now, I don't think anybody is saying that continuity demands that henceforth, Blake be portrayed as a roboticist in Phineas Horton and Hank Pym's league. Clearly, it's okay to ignore things like that, and that story has been ignored ever since (as far as I can tell).

I guess what I'm saying is that continuity is, like everything else involved in writing a comic book, more art than science. And for me, the general rule is that writer's should be respectful of what's gone before.

I guess I agree with Mike -- sometimes, I want to read a Superman story. And what makes him Superman and not "Powerful Guy With an S on his Chest Man" is the continuity that's built up over the years. When Byrne "stripped him down to basics," a lot of people left because once you get rid of Kandor and Jewel Kryptonite and what have you, it's no longer their Superman -- it's just some guy with the same logo.

Phil -- DC is debuting an Ultimates line called All-Star. It's the one where they have Frank Miller and Jim Lee on Batman (the first issue is out and, while I haven't read it, apparently it sucks). There's also a forthcoming Morrison/Quitely Superman and a forthcoming Wonder Woman (I don't recall the creative team) from the same line.

The "problem" with Ultimates, vis-a-vis continuity, is that here we are 5+ years later and guess what -- now the Ultimates universe has its own continuity. That's inherent in the continuing serial story. Once you move past the self-contained story, by definition, there's continuity.

Matt: I'm going to make a radical proposal. I propose we abandon 'continuity' in comic books from writer to writer, series to series, perhaps entirely.,/i>

Heh, radical to you perhaps. :-) That's how I've been viewing most comics since I started picking them up again a couple years ago. I want internal consistency within one writer's story. I don't care so much about the "universe" consistency, as I think it's largely unmaintainable without a strong single creative driving force. And I definitely don't want that.

Kevin: When Bill Mantlo, or Gail Simone, or Grant Morrison starts writing Superman--they don't, and they write something NEW instead!

Well, yeah. I'm all for that as another option too, of course. Bring on more We3 or Queen & Country (just finished the novel) or whatever.

Phil: To get rid of continuity would be to get rid of what brings people back to comics. You buy because you want to see where the characters go ... Some readers enjoy the comfort of reading a story with a familiar character being used in new ways or give a new view of an older story.

I think these statements are a little conflicting. Readers enjoying the comfort of a story about a familiar character is what I thought Matt was talking about above. I don't remember ever regularly buying any of the Superman titles, but I obviously know the character and most of the basics. I'm very interested in Morrison's take on him and couldn't care less about any wonky continuity that would get in the way of whatever his stories are. I would be more turned off if he had to carry over some elements from say Chuck Austen's recent run. (I haven't read that either, but I can't imagine caring about anything from there.) That's the kind of continuity that I think Matt was talking about, carrying over specific elements that aren't part of the character's canon from run to run.

And if I wind up picking up Superman again in the future when there's another good creative team on the book, I don't care if the characters act a little differently than they would if Morrison wrote them or forget certain things they knew during his run. It's obvious that some people do buy the books because they like that kind of continuity, but it's not a universal thing.

Phil: What about getting rid of "Crisis" like reboots and just start a new line like the "Ultimate" line? Was that a more elegant solution vs. trying to reboot the existing line? Will DC try this? Have they and I missed it?

They do it sporadically, but usually not with such a marketing push as the ultimate line got. Byrne's Doom Patrol is just a flat out reboot. The All Star line seems to exist to give high profile creators a place to not have to worry about continuity at all, as opposed to the ultimate line which was trying to create a new universe that was internally consistent. I don't expect Morrison's Superman or the next Batman & Robin tean will have anything to do with Miller's Batman & Robin.

I just don't see why the kid identifies any less with the herring story after the second one is published. I love the first Conan movie and the second one sucks beyond measure, but it doesn't taint the first one for me.

The thing with Kandor and Jewel Kryptonite is that there was a time before those elements were introduced and those stories aren't lesser because of it. If the character existed that way before, he can exist that way again. I think it's is usually very easy to compile a list of basics for characters, generally in a couple sentences - the type of thing that played before the George Reeves Superman tv show or was at the top of the first page of Silver Age Marvel comics.

The kid who likes the Bates herring story can still go back and read it, that's true, but he's effectively been told "Sorry, kid -- we're not writing about your Superman any more. We're writing about a similar character." Why should he bother to pick up the newest issue of Superman? Similarly, when you scrap Jewel Kryptonite and Kandor, you're telling everyone whose conception of Superman is wrapped up with Jewel K and Kandor that you're no longer publishing stories about their Superman. Why should they give you their hard-earned money?

And if you think Mantlo can ignore the Bates run when he's doing his stuff, why do you want to hamstring Mantlo by telling him his own run should be internally consistent? How is it any different for Mantlo to ignore a Bates story than it is to ignore one of his own stories?

I wouldn't necessarily want to tell Mantlo that at all: his runs on Hulk and Iron Man were masterworks of manic pacing, story elements flying along, etc etc. The assumption, however, that Mantlo (or anyone) would ignore his own work seems to me to be alarmist.

Why should he bother to pick up the newest issue of Superman? Why should they give you their hard-earned money?

They shouldn't. I think character or series loyalty is not a very accurate indicator of possible enjoyment of a book on the shelf.

How is it any different for Mantlo to ignore a Bates story than it is to ignore one of his own stories?

Because Mantlo presumably has control over what he writes. He can't help what Bates wrote. That said, I wouldn't be too terribly upset even if he did ignore something from an earlier story he wrote - everybody can change their mind about stuff, after all. I just think it makes more sense to hold a writer accountable for his own work than someone else's.

And for me, the general rule is that writer's should be respectful of what's gone before.

I think if we could define what that means, we'd be well on our way to better comics and better continuity. But I'm afraid that "respect" can sometimes be contradictory. Depending on circumstances, respect can be making reference to the work of previous writers or ignoring that work. Let's look at the Giffen-DeMatteis Justice League (to pull out a series at random). It can't be ignored, presumably, because that would be disrespectful. So, because the current overlords of the DC Universe don't want to play in that sandbox, they're demolishing and obliterating it. Soon there'll be no need to refer to it ever again. If it's truly in the way of the story they want to tell right now, pretending it never existed and ignoring it entirely would have been far more respectful than what's been done.

I've got no great love of Blue Beetle or Max Lord, but the carnage they've been put through seems overtly cruel and unnecessary, enough so to sour me on the whole Infinite Crisis storyline (aw, who am I kidding--Identity Crisis already soured me on the whole thing long ago). Like Priest said once, just put them on a bus.

I'm a great fan of the "just ignore it" school of continuity. Don't like an aspect of your hero's backstory? Don't mention it rather than try and build a story about why Superman's hatred for pickles was in fact induced by Brainiac as a fiendish plot to crash America's pickle industry...

Rogern Stern was good at this, coming on board a series and respecting its past while doing his own thing. Far too many writers now are or were fanboys and want to resolve their own fannish issues (perennial example: John Byrne) rather than build on what came before.

Yeah, the All-Star line is supposed to be continuity-free, 'iconic' takes on the characters (Alex Ross' Justice seems to fit there as well). DC have also got the Classified line, which seems to sometimes be in-continuity (Powergirl's origin, Morrison's JLA: Classified) and sometimes not (the Giffen/DeMatteis JLA: Classified, possibly Ellis' run).

I don't see why I Can't Believe It's Not the Justice League is out of continuity; it was published after the events of Prelude to Infinite Crisis but took place before it. There are plenty of times that's happened. Now, admittedly, Prelude was a giant, signed, FAKK-U to Giffen and DeMatteis, but it's still as much in continuity as any other Justice League story.

I have been trying to work out my own thoughts on continuity for a while now (ever since I saw a couple of old "Andy Griffith Show" episodes -- but that's another story) and my problem seems to be one of perspective.

I read a lot of DC stuff, so the connections among the titles are obvious. However, I only read a few Marvel books (Captain America, Fantastic Four, and for the moment Astonishing X-Men), and they don't seem to have the same kind of shared-universe feel a Marvel book once did. Yes, they all take place in the Marvel Universe, but there aren't overt references to other books, even ones in which the characters are featured. (The same applied to Morrison's New X-Men, which I read in paperback form.) When I read the Busiek/Perez Avengers, those kinds of references abounded.

Each of those Marvel books uses elements of previous continuity (even if it's just Nomad or Valeria Richards), but each book also has a familiar status quo. I think that's the "illusion of change" -- at the end of the day, everything gets reset to certain core parameters. The details may change, but the big picture doesn't.

I'm sure I've read in a few places that the two G/D/M minis were out of continuity. Certainly they refer to Max Lord as a cyborg, which has officially been declared to have never happened (I believe the precise wording was …”We thought about that aspect of the story some more and then asked, ‘Did anyone read it?’ No. ‘Did anyone like the idea?’ No. So we moved ahead with Max as being a human, and having been a human, and not letting that small part of the past stand in the way of this story. We wanted what was best for Countdown, and for us, that meant that Max had to be a human.”). So either ICBINTJL or Countdown To Infinite Crisis is out-of-continuity.
Personally I vote for countdown, but I suspect my vote doesn't count :-/

Apropos of this thread, it just so happens that I recently reread the Celestial Madonna story from Avengers. It's generally considered one of the highlight of Bronze Age superheroics. Now there was a story that knew what to do with continuity -- like Uncle Scrooge in his money bin, it dove in, swam around, and happily spit continuity in a great big fountain in the air. Engelhart wove together sich disparate elements of Marvel continuity as the then-obscure Immortus, the then-and-still-obscure Rama Tut, the Kree-Skrull War, the Human Torch (including his previous Marvel Universe appearances), the Blue Area of the Moon, and Moondragon.

That's what continuity means to me.

Each character has his own mythos, if you will. This is actually the only important aspect to continuity. I'm sure someone could post something on "What events make up the Daredevil mythos (or Batman or Fantastis Four or Green Lantern...)" and each person would probably post the same 5-6 or 10-12 events. There is a consensus on these things.

Everything else can be safely ignored because ultimately, the fans just don't care very much about that. Individual issues or creative team runs may have fierce partisans, but overall they're not identified as core to the mythos. This is the appropriate definition of canon.

The mythos should never been touched upon - it should remain inviolated. Don't do things that cheapen, contradict or degrade it. It can and should be referred to however.

What about all the other issues? We have two cases here. The absolute horrible stories and all the rest.

The best things to do with the horrible stories (those that are mythos killers - the Spider-Clone fiasco, Onslaught, Teen Tony) should be ignored, effectively excising them from the entire canon. Events seen as "mistakes" in retrospect are usually just best overlooked. "Solving" the problem usually only serves to highlight the deficiency. Everyone knows what stories these are. Editorial just needs the discpline to protect the franchise. If a gifted writer has a truly elegant solution to one of these problems (Geoff John's solution on Hawkman's Egyptian/Thanagar role) then it might be allowed. But the Hawkman situation was unique because it was a valuable property that was no longer used. For stronger characters that survived such manhandling, it's best not to risk dredging it up.

As for the vast majority of issues, they should be ignored for the most part, but not contradicted. Of course, past issues - even lame ones in retrospect - could serve as the basis for an excellent story later. They may have been very enjoyable issues, but they did not reach the level of mythos. When a writer feels a reference to one of these issues helps the story, he can do so. But it's not needed to slavishly explain inconsistency or loose end. That may have been appropriate when Roy Thomas was first developing a very, very young Marvel Universe, but the needs of a 50 year franchise is very different. In any case, such references should be rare unless it's done as part of a villain's mythos.

There are certain actions that have catatrosphic effect on continuity. They are when characters die, or when the characters engage in absoluted depravity that their character becomes untenable (Green Lantern as genocidal maniac or the worst portrayals of Hank Pym). These should almost never be allowed period. Not just because most of the time they will be bad stories, but that it is inevitable that future writers will attempt to overturn that event.

In regards to character deaths, any should be allowed only when 1) Editorial decides that the character will never return, 2) the character gets an appropriate send off (heroes die heroically, villains finally get poetic justice), and 3) the internal logic of the story MANDATES the character dies. Phoenix's death in X-Men # 137 followed the logic of what had happened. Blue Beetle's death in Identity Crisis did not.

Some writers may complain about the creative limits this imposes, but it's really about craft and defining the needs of genre writing. In this case, the genre is more about serialized adventure than specifically comic books. Conan, James Bond, and Sherlock Holmes are seem to be equally affected.

I could not disagree more strongly with the idea that the mythos should remain inviolate. Every character of any longevity has a part of his or her mythos that was added after the fact by a subsequent creative team. Were we to keep Spider-Man's mythos frozen in amber, Gwen Stacy would still be alive (and, if we want to be really pedantic, she still wouldn't be giving nerdy old Peter Parker the time of day). Yet Peter's failure to save Gwen from the Green Goblin is a core element of his mythos and has been for the past 30 years. We got that story because Gerry Conway was willing to take the part of the mythos that says "... and his girlfriend is Gwen Stacy." and say "OK, what if we kill her?"

And luckily for us, Jason, that story led to the excellent story where we found out that Gwen was killed by the Green Goblin because she was sleeping with him and had given birth to his goblin babies, which were now all grown up because of the Goblin formula and were out for revenge against Spider Man for his having abandoned them years ago, because they mistakenly believed...

Well, you get the point. Personally, my definition of what would be essential Spider-Man more or less would include that appearance in Amazing Fantasy: I hardly think Gwen was essential to the very concept of Spider-Man. But I don't really agree with Chris exactly, either, so I don't know where that leaves me.

Matt -- A bad story is a bad story. I don't think we can really blame the fact that JMS turned out a stinker of a comic on his unwillingness to disregard Gerry Conway's Death of Gwen Stacy.

In fact, a large part of the reason I avoid JMS is because he seems to want to ignore continuity in favor of his own conception of what Spider-Man should be. Which is his perogative, I suppose, but I'm interested in reading about an average schlub who got bitten by a radioactive spider, not the latest incarnation of the Spider Totem, or whatever that nonsense was.

I'm more inclined to agree with Chris, but I think the reason Jason's wrong is that he's sweeping too much into the "inviolable mythos". E.g., I'd probably draw the inviolable line closer to "Clark Kent is a reporter" than to "Clark Kent is a reporter at the Daily Planet", because you can do stories in which Clark is a reporter at WGBS without really violating anything necessary to Superman, but stories in which Clark Kent is a teacher or a Congressman would just feel off.

Peter Parker having a steady girlfriend or wife may actually come closer to violating his core mythos (Parker is a loser) than killing his girlfriend.

I don't think fans are drawn to continuity nearly as much as some here would assume. Yes, fans want to see "what happens next," but they also want what happens next to be remarkably similar to what's already happened. That is, they don't like major changes happening to the comics they read. Dead characters are resurrected, disabled characters are miraculously healed, the X-Men lineup will always consist of a bunch of characters introduced over twenty years ago by Lee or Claremont (and yes, retcons are re-retconned and revamps devamped). There's been a major change? Time and the right editor will wash it away. Given this trend toward stasis, what does waiting for "what happens next" amount to, if not waiting for the next good story? We don't keep reading Superman because we're really hoping the next creative team can go somewhere with that delightful Ruin character. We keep reading Superman because we want to read more Superman stories.

For a more specific example: they're ruining Batman pretty well with IC. This doesn't make me interested in reading Batman. But the prospect of reading Batman stories in the future - ones that ignore his recent crappy continuity and just focus on telling good Batman stories - will keep me reading stuff like "Batman Classified" until someone on the main Bat-books starts doing the same.

I think the continuity-driven books of my youth (70's, 80's) satisfy more than any attempts at it (continuity) since.

While my own impressionability and childhood associations could explain it, another explanation also works. In the 70's, books had precisely the right amount of back story to be rich and interesting before they inevitably toppled under their own accreted weight. My defense of the latter interperetation is Defenders Essentials.

I never read Defenders in The Day. On reading the Essentials, the wider Marvel Universe (viewed through Sub-Mariner, Dr. Strange and Hulk) was visible via a rich tapestry of cross-linkages and implied stories that drew me in despite having only passing familiarity with any of the key players' histories. This exciting feeling of discovery and implied larger canvas was as evident (and enjoyable) to me now, as my enjoyment of other stories was then.

In the 70's, you could read Amazing, relatively recent Marvel Tales reprints, and the deeper paperback Ditko/Lee reprints. Importantly, the breadth of the 150-ish run represented by the 3 threads could still be stitched together in your (adolescent) head. Marvel Teamup, even under Claremont/Byrne, was wired into all corners of the MU cleanly and intriguingly.

If you grant for the moment that the 70's Marvel excellence was a natural accident of enough history to be rich and not enough to burden, 80's Titans and X-Men extend their shelf-life by a) using the natural stitching powers of sidekicks who had no burdensome continuity of their own or b) resetting the cast to allow new history to evolve while not jettisoning the past.

Since then, the comics that have been the most interesting were those that went for a completely different vibe (see Moore, Gaiman, Morrison). Any title that attempted to milk or evoke the continuity tapestry seemed misguided if not impenetrable. Notably, the success strategy of Astro City seems to be to place itself at exactly that sweet spot of unburdensome backstory (reinforced by no back issues to contradict).

So my thesis is this -- that perfect storm of 70's Marvel/80's DC was the historically unique sweet spot of rich backstory and creative energy that no amount of reboots/reimaginings can possibly recreate. This doesn't mean 'comics of my youth ruled, all others suck.' Rather that very specific continuity-driven storytelling had a window that opened and closed, coincidentally in my youth.

Moore, Morrison, Chadwick, Allred figured out plenty of ways to produce compelling comics that satisfied differently, but cross-title continuity was not the engine.

So yeah, under this thesis, continuity had its day with the Big 2 and much as Marx postulated, we cannot turn back the wheel of history to reclaim that particular magic. Make new magic.

You know, JJ, I think there's something to your perfect storm theory.

Greg: Peter Parker is not a loser who gets no women. He picked up Betty Brant very early on. In fact, one early issue ended with Stan writing a note saying "This guy isn't a loser." He's basically always had a love interest. One of the classic Silver Age mom,ents was "Face it tiger, you've hit the jackpot." In fact, saying "Peter Parker shouldn't have a girlfriend" is fundamental to his character concept betray such a basic lack of understanding of the topic that I think you should formally recuse yourself from all conversation of Silver Age Marvel. I mean, at some comics bloggers have the excuse of never having read the comics...

Mike is correct, that Greg is incorrect, in the matter of "Peter Parker is a loser." It's true the initial character conception "borrowed" from "Superman hides his identity by pretending to be a nerdy guy with glasses" included Peter coming across as the unpopular kid at school, can't get the girl, etc. But that's not integral to the core concept, was just a plot device to make him instantly familiar to people who already read comics. Leaving aside whether anyone thinks a given plot thread thereafter was/wasn't integral to the core concept, the thing about Spiderman is that the character changes and grows. Bruce Wayne had to wait until he grew up to seek justice, and attempt to assuage his guilt, for his parents' loss, the journeying and learning of his teenage years are part of the backstory. But, Peter gets his powers as a teenager and that is part of his actual story: what you do as a teenager is different than what you do as a young man is different than what you do as a young married man (not to mention a young man married to a famous model/movie star). Spidey has his problems ("problems" being what set Marvel characters apart from their DC counterparts in the 1960s), but having been unpopular in high school was a phase - which in fact many of his readers went through - not the definition of the character. Paradoxically, that Spiderman does grow and change as a human being, makes him as popular a character as Batman whose popularity is based on him always being "fully formed."

Jason is wrong in saying that Gwen Stacy was part of the Spider-Man mythos before she was killed. Her death is mythic. But her status as Peter Parker's girlfriend had not yet been granted mythic status in a series where Peter had previous girlfriends in Betty Brant and Liz Allen, not to mention the high profile of Mary Jane Watson all throughout the Pete-Gwen relationship. At that point in time, the only characters essential to the Spider-Man mythos was Aunt May and J Jonah Jameson (and Jameson took a while to develop.)

Gwen Stacy COULD have become a mythic element in some alternate universe with stories that departed from what was actually published. But she didn't. Her death (due in much part to the heightened emotion created by the subsequent death of the Green Goblin) did.

In a book on comic book writing, Peter David talked about how Tom DeFalco attempted to explain to Peter why he couldn't allow certain stories. He said that it was possible to do a great story on the final confrontation between Spider-Man and Jameson that would lead to their reconciliation right before Jameson dies. Peter starts jumping up and down at how brilliant it is and he wants to kill Jameson!

Peter (and Tom) were right: it could be an excellent story. Who knows, maybe the best story about Spider-Man ever told. But it is the wrong story for a character in a serial. If American comics were more like manga which generally has an overall story arc with a planned ending, it would be different. But the needs of the genre require Jameson's continued existence UNLESS it is done in a manner that creates an even more mythic element that not only replaces the loss of Jameson but adds an additional one.

But there's the rub. How do you know it will resonate? This is where we distinguish the great from the not-so.

Of course, how do you know which elements are mythic or not? There will be difference of opinions, and elements that were not mythic before can become mythic later on. But we do have guidelines.

1) Look at what was happening when the book suddenly became popular; ie Simonson's Thor and Miller's Daredevil.

2) Ask the casual fan what are the best stories or most emotional or suspenseful about a character. Chances are they'll name the big ones. The Death of Phoenix, the Great Darkness Saga, Batman: Year One, Elektra, the Hobgoblin. They're not going to mention the entertaining, but ultimately disposable stories.

3) Ask the general body of fandom what is vital or cool about the character, they can give specific events and stories, but are limited to a few bullet points. The wisdom of crowds rules that their consensus will identify most of them.

Something else I've noticed is that only a small number of creative runs account for the vast majority of mythic elements. In Spider-Man for example, almost everything is due to Lee/Ditko, Conway, or Roger Stern. The FF has Lee/Kirby and Byrne. Daredevil has Miller and Nocenti (for Typhoid Mary). Avengers have Lee, Thomas, Shooter, and Stern. I'm ignorant on DC, but I'm sure others can fill in for them.

Not everything they did was mythic. But the gaps between their runs contributed almost nothing. Other than the Black Cat, was anything added to Spider-Man between the death of the Green Goblin and the appearance of the Hobgoblin?

To me, there's three kinds of continuity: the literary, the fanatical, and the commercial.

I think publishers/editors should maintain a historical throughline as they build serial story upon serial story, and allow writers to tell new stories anywhere in the throughline that benefits the story.
All new stories are free to treat oprevious ones as apocrypha: not absolute fact or complete fiction.
With this sort of literary continuity, previous stories are like enriched, compost soil for new growth.
Max Allan Collins set himself up for this in the Road from Perdition story; Batman LOTDK hits and misses this way.

At it's best, literary continuity just makes things fun. Look at the way the DC mainstream occasionally mines the once connected Vertigo universes, and how the Vertigo universes mine each other.

At the other end of continuity, is the fanatic. Preached by some fans and some editors, it's the kind of fascist regulation that made Armstrong show up with his arm in a cast if he broke his wrist in Eternal Warrior. Impressive fascism when done in a tight and fun way, as Valiant mostly did...
But that's the same kind of stupid continuity that forced Garth Ennis to "reconcile" his upheavals in Hell with those of Sandman. Fanatic continuity is just about consistency, without regard to story quality.

Finally commercial continuity: simply the desire to spread elements of a single story across multiple products. Continuity that's just about product identification, not story or consistency.

Finally, on a totally other tangent: I've always liked Elseworlds better than What-If and Alterniverses because the Elseworlds routinely push the boundaries of the mythos, whereas the marvel books simply dick around with continuity.