ANOTHER TENDENCY THAT COULD SURELY BE NOTED IN FAN-TURNED-PRO WRITERS, IS THAT THEY'RE STICKLERS FOR CONTINUITY AND CONSISTENCY. HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THIS?
It's fine to an extent, but there is simply so much trivia accumulating, that some things have to be discarded, that you can't feel bound by a story that took place say ten-twenty years ago. Take the origin of Superman: Mort Weisinger changed it to a certain extent, annexing the Superboy legend and various other survivors of Krypton and so on. Details were not always conceived of as being historically momentous. Who knew thirty years ago that Superman would be such an institution today and that all of the little things would have to be explained. Personally I don't feel another editor ten years from now should be bound by what I do today.
TO SOME READERS, THE TIGHTER THE CONSISTENCY, THE MORE BELIEVABLE THEIR FANTASY WORLD BECOMES AND THE MORE THEY ENJOY IT. HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THIS?
The point is that comics are fantasy, telling stories that didn't really happen. When you try to bring too much reality into fantasy, it has a tendency not to be entertaining. So if we're not consistent at times, you simply must excuse us.
--An excerpt from an interview with Julius Schwartz
Interviewer : uncredited (Mark Gruenwald?)
Source : AMAZING WORLD OF DC COMICS #14 (March 1977)
(formatting and punctuation duplicated exactly)