Quoted from the introduction to volume one of Dark Shadows: The Complete Original Series: “One of the things I tried to do [with Dark Shadows] and with most of my comics was to bring as much of the real world as I could — to try to write out of the headlines and out of what was happening. My goal was to write a good story. The fans are interested beyond the normal interest in a story. Their interest becomes almost like a religion or something bordering on it. So they are interested ritualistically: they want everything to be observed in a particular kind of way. The writer is not interested in the ritual of Dark Shadows. He is interested in the people, yes; in the characters, of course; and in the best darn stories he can get out of them, but not in whether he observes precisely what Jonathan [Frid as Barnabas Collins] should do under these precise conditions so that it will be in agreement with 20 other stories that came before [or be in agreement with the television series]. If the writer involves himself that much in the ritual of Dark Shadows, he isn’t going to get a decent story. He’s going to be restricted — bound — too much by what’s been done.”
Interesting.
Views: 356
You need to be a member of Captain Comics to add comments!
First, by bothering to keep details straight, writers give readers more reason to care about the details of their stories. Learning and knowing the lore of a strip that has a lore can be pleasurable. Having a lore entails keeping stuff straight.
Second, I understand one storyline on Dark Shadows explained how Barnabas became a vampire. By Drake's argument, it wouldn't matter if a Dark Shadows comic's writer did his own version that contradicted the TV show's. But it would be reasonable for a fan of the show to not like the fact that the comic had contradicted the TV show's version. A fan can be interested in a series's stories as well as its characters, and want new stories that build on its stories as well as use those characters.
Third, the lore of a series usually isn't its only interest. The stories might be interesting despite the fact that the lore is not very consistent or well thought out (as with Doctor Who in the 70s). A story that appeals to lore-oriented fans mightn't have the same appeal for less lore-oriented readers. Writers can't please everyone, but when fans comprise the bulk of the audience, it makes sense to be concerned about pleasing them.
Well, that quote doesn't seem to address the factual details of something, such has how Barnabas became a vampire -- he's addressing a character's actions in a new situation, and whether they have to agree with how they've acted in the past. I'm a lot more sympathetic to that view. I want the facts straight, but I want the characters to be able to surprise me, and not be too hemmed in by their previous actions.
Can't say how well it worked for Dark Shadows, though -- I think I've read one issue of the comic, and while I was fascinated by the series as a kid, we could only get it on the one or two weeks a year we went on vacation. So I never delved into the mythology of the thing.
I understand one storyline on Dark Shadows explained how Barnabas became a vampire. By Drake's argument, it wouldn't matter if a Dark Shadows comic's writer did his own version that contradicted the TV show's.
Funny you should mention that as a specific example, Luke, because that's exactly what did happen. Jeff Thompson cites the origin story in his introduction (mild spoilers follow): “In the Dark Shadows comic books, the circumstances of Barnabas’ becoming a vampire are left vague at best and contradictory at worst. Dark Shadows #1 reveals that ‘in the 18th century… a real witch, more evil than death, cast the curse which doomed Barnabas to existence as a vampire.’ The witch is Angelique, who swoops through 11 issues of the comic book to torment (and occasionally aid) her beloved Barnabas. However, in Dark Shadows #14, Barnabas muses, ‘My travels took me to the West Indies! Now, I return with the dread mark of the bat!’ This story, ‘The Mystic Painting,’ asserts that Barnabas was cursed in the West Indies in about 1740 as opposed to the TV show’s scenario in which Angelique cursed Barnabas in Collinsport in 1795-1796 (as Dark Shadows #1 also implies).”
I should mention at this point that the introduction cites only #22, #24, #30 “and other issues” as being written by Arnold Drake. Thompson refers to #24 as "one of the very best issues of the series." Issue #14 is not reprinted in volume one (which reprints #1-7), and the first issue was written by Donald J. Arneson. Issues #2-7 are uncredited.
Oh, cool... thanks, Rob! I guess I'll be waiting a while to read Arnold Drake's stories. The series ran from 1968 to 1976. It started as quarterly, and didn't increase its frequency to bi-monthly until 1972, two years after the TV series itself was off the air. It lasted for 35 issues which will be divided into five volumes.
Because there won’t be any need to mention Arnold Drake when I review volume one next week, I’ll just mention here that he watched only enough episodes of Dark Shadows to “gain the basic flavor of it.” from Thompson’s introduction, I didn’t get the impression that drake wrote any issues earlier than #22, anyway. Editor Wallace Green was quoted from a 1973 letter as saying, “We have used up several writers so far. A couple ran dry after some good stories. One or two never really did get the hang of it… [o]ne of our former writers was working on a trilogy. The second episode was so terrible we let the whole thing drop after part one.”
Having little practical knowledge of Dark Shadows, I give you this example: Marvel's Star Trek had severe limitations on what they could use (only the first movie I believe) so they had to create original stories. And most people feel that these were among the worst Trek comics. DC's Star Trek could use characters from the TV series and the first two movies and these were considered far superior and they still had original stories!
Fans are often interested in stories which build on a series's lore or previous stories - that explore Klingon culture, say - but maintaining continuity doesn't have to mean grounding stories in continuity. The writers can just avoid contradicting past stories while doing something new. That's why I don't share Fig's worry that continuity can become a straightjacket for writers.
Replies
Don't be so reticent, Commander - tell us how you really feel.
Second, I understand one storyline on Dark Shadows explained how Barnabas became a vampire. By Drake's argument, it wouldn't matter if a Dark Shadows comic's writer did his own version that contradicted the TV show's. But it would be reasonable for a fan of the show to not like the fact that the comic had contradicted the TV show's version. A fan can be interested in a series's stories as well as its characters, and want new stories that build on its stories as well as use those characters.
Third, the lore of a series usually isn't its only interest. The stories might be interesting despite the fact that the lore is not very consistent or well thought out (as with Doctor Who in the 70s). A story that appeals to lore-oriented fans mightn't have the same appeal for less lore-oriented readers. Writers can't please everyone, but when fans comprise the bulk of the audience, it makes sense to be concerned about pleasing them.
Can't say how well it worked for Dark Shadows, though -- I think I've read one issue of the comic, and while I was fascinated by the series as a kid, we could only get it on the one or two weeks a year we went on vacation. So I never delved into the mythology of the thing.
Funny you should mention that as a specific example, Luke, because that's exactly what did happen. Jeff Thompson cites the origin story in his introduction (mild spoilers follow): “In the Dark Shadows comic books, the circumstances of Barnabas’ becoming a vampire are left vague at best and contradictory at worst. Dark Shadows #1 reveals that ‘in the 18th century… a real witch, more evil than death, cast the curse which doomed Barnabas to existence as a vampire.’ The witch is Angelique, who swoops through 11 issues of the comic book to torment (and occasionally aid) her beloved Barnabas. However, in Dark Shadows #14, Barnabas muses, ‘My travels took me to the West Indies! Now, I return with the dread mark of the bat!’ This story, ‘The Mystic Painting,’ asserts that Barnabas was cursed in the West Indies in about 1740 as opposed to the TV show’s scenario in which Angelique cursed Barnabas in Collinsport in 1795-1796 (as Dark Shadows #1 also implies).”
I should mention at this point that the introduction cites only #22, #24, #30 “and other issues” as being written by Arnold Drake. Thompson refers to #24 as "one of the very best issues of the series." Issue #14 is not reprinted in volume one (which reprints #1-7), and the first issue was written by Donald J. Arneson. Issues #2-7 are uncredited.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next