Terminology Time: "Retcon"

A big part of my aim here is to help new readers get familiarized not just with comic books themselves but with the process of selecting and reading them. So, from time to time, I'll be sharing some common terms that often get thrown around in comic conversations, either because I'll be using them or just because they're good to know. If you're a seasoned reader, you can probably skip these posts.

One of the most common devices used in the comic book industry is retroactive continuity, often shortened to, "retcon." Basically, when you retcon, you introduce some kind of element into a story that alters some of the previously established facts of that story.

Let's take a piece of information that's pretty well-known, so as to avoid spoilers: Bruce Wayne's parents were gunned down in front of him when he was a child. The pain and anger of this traumatic event pushes him to become Batman. All of this was established in Detective Comics #33, was back in 1939.

But I really want Martha Wayne to be alive for a story arc, so I decide to write a flashback scene where a mad scientist breaks into the Gotham morgue on the eve of the murders, steals her body, and replaces it with an exact replica. He then revives her with Frankenstein-esque technology and brainwashes her into staying with him forever. Decades later, she finally breaks free of his control and leaves his secret lair for the first time, eventually revealing herself to her now adult son. Oh, and as a side effect of the back-from-the-dead machine, she hasn't aged.

Now, we can all agree that this would probably be a terrible story, but it would technically be a successful retcon (with a dash of deus ex machina): rather than requesting that the reader pretend that previously established events never happened by starting my story with, "Hi, I'm Bruce Wayne. When I was little, my dad was murdered but my mom and I survived," I've acknowledged what we've all accepted to be part of the character's history and altered it a little to suit the purposes of the story I want to tell. The information isn't presented as, "Hey, this thing is suddenly true," but rather, "Hey, this has always been true, you just didn't know it because of reasons."

Retconning isn't exclusive to comics - you'll find that most serialized stories employ the device (soap operas, video games franchises, even movies). However, as the comics industry is loaded with characters who have Depression-era origins, one could argue that it's been the most vital to the survival of many modern titles.

Despite this, it's often a controversial move. Many would argue that retconning is "cheating," primarily because it allows one to purge entire events from the continuity of a story, particularly if they're unpopular. For example, if my Martha-Wayne-never-died story arc failed miserably (and it would), I could retcon again by having Bruce Wayne wake up from a villain-induced coma and realize that it had all been a dream. 

Another criticism is that it lowers the stakes - can any event have a real and lasting impact if it can just be explained away?

I'd be the first person to admit that a retcon can be damaging, but there are plenty of pros too. A good retcon can really free a writer when he or she takes over a title, allowing them some breathing room within the canon, and this has often led to really groundbreaking story arcs and ideas. 

Love it or hate it, the retcon is here to stay. At least now you'll know what it means.