And now, back to our regularly scheduled programme.

One of the annoying things about writing a fortnightly column is that every so often, you read something that seems like a great subject, and then realise it's going to be another fortnight before the column goes up, by which time everyone will have forgotten about it. Still, sometimes it's worth covering anyway.

So: On her blog a couple of weeks ago, Heidi Macdonald noted a press conference about Marvel's upcoming 'The Other' crossover for the Spider-Man titles. What caught her attention was a question from a retailer wanting to know whether this story was actually going to have any ramifications, which was apparently going to be a major concern for him in deciding how much to push the series. Heidi finds that surprising.

"Which made us wonder... what 'ramifications' did WATCHMEN have? Or DARK KNIGHT? Or SANDMAN? We have no idea of [whether] 'The Other' will be any good, but we would have thought that a good solid story would sell more in the long run than mere ramifications."

Where to start...? Let's start by defining what we mean by ramifications. We're talking about an effect on the plot of later stories. What happens now affects what happens next. We're not talking about creative influence or anything of that story. Plot consequences, pure and simple.

The most obvious point to start with is that WATCHMEN, DARK KNIGHT RETURNS and SANDMAN are very bad counterexamples. WATCHMEN and DARK KNIGHT had no plot ramifications in later stories because there weren't any later stories for those ramifications to appear in. True, DARK KNIGHT spawned a sequel many years down the line, but the story itself was presented as self-contained.

''Ramifications' means that what happens now affects what happens next.' SANDMAN is a rather more complicated case. It existed on the fringes of the DC Universe, and spawned a number of sequels. But it was still presented as primarily a self-contained, writer-driven entity - a closed system within the wider DC continuity. More to the point, thought, SANDMAN was a 75 issue series broken down into multiple story arcs (and a number of freestanding short stories). 'The Other' is a single story arc within three ongoing titles. A better comparison would be between 'The Other' and, say, 'A Game Of You', which most certainly did have ramifications within the wider SANDMAN series.

Heidi's choice of examples flags up an interesting trend over the last few years among the producers of superhero books, especially Marvel. Whereas in the past the American superhero comic tended to ramble ever onwards in an open-ended fashion, the demands of the trade paperback format have led to stories being structured into much more rigid arcs. And a tendency has arisen to see those arcs as self-contained. This goes in conjunction with the anti-continuity backlash of the recent years, in which it's become dreadfully fashionable for incoming writers to simply ignore what came before them, and strike out in a completely unrelated direction.

The Spider-Man titles have been a particularly bad example of this sort of thing, with three monthly titles, supposedly all featuring the same characters in the same universe, none of which ever acknowledge the existence of one another's stories. No wonder the retailer has his doubts that this storyline will be any different.

But why should it matter? Why do readers even care about plot consequences? Why can't they just take every story in isolation?

Well, yes, in theory you could read every arc as a completely freestanding story. There's nothing to stop a reader from approaching stories in this way. But the ground rules of the genre, if anything, positively discourage it. The established rules of ongoing superhero comics, combined with the basic principles of how to write an effective story, inevitably lead to a situation where stories ought to have consequences.

'The Spider-Man titles never acknowledge one another's stories.' Let's remind ourselves of the basic ground rules of the ongoing Marvel or DC superhero comic. They accumulate history as they go along. Past and future issues all co-exist in a single universe. The events may be broken down into self-contained stories, but even so, there remains one continuity, and the central character(s) lead one life. There's a narrative line. Contrast that with something like THE SIMPSONS, which effectively hits the reset button with each new story.

Alongside that, conventional stories work by putting the protagonist through a series of events that leave him, and possibly other characters, changed as a result of their experiences. The change does not have to be world-shattering, and it's important to be clear that 'ramifications' are not some sort of code for 'enormous cosmic-scale crossover'. It's enough that the character learns some sort of lesson, or changes his view on something, or begins (or ends) a relationship. The point is that something should have changed as a result of the story. If nothing has changed by the time the story is over, then it was probably crap.

There are all manner of established ways of writing stories that fulfil the narrative requirement for change without disrupting the title character's status quo. Fill-in stories used to deploy these devices all the time, back when such things were regularly commissioned. The character can have a change of heart about a guest-starring character whom he's unlikely to meet again. Or, more commonly, the change of status can be inflicted on a minor supporting character or a recurring villain who probably won't show up for a couple of years. Writers who are particularly determined to change nothing traditionally bring in a completely new character for their fill-in story, and deliver on narrative expectations by having something happen to him.

But when even moderately big events happen to a character, the ground rules of the genre logically demand that those events should be reflected in later stories. If the character leads one single life, and he undergoes a change as a result of a story, then clearly that change should remain in effect when the next story begins. Change can be slow, and it can be incremental, and in the longer term it can even be circular. But it has to happen, because the rules of the story demand it.

'Marvel and DC superhero comics accumulate history as they go along.' If a seemingly significant change (such as Spider-Man developing organic webbing powers out of nowhere) has no knock-on effects at all (as it did), then there are only two possible conclusions: either the ground rules are not being adhered to, or the events of the ignored story weren't significant after all and nothing truly changed. This latter conclusion is much more damaging than publishers think. No matter how good a story may be when viewed in isolation, the ground rules of an ongoing series demand that it is not viewed in isolation - and if, in context, the events are shown to be trivial, then the story is weakened as a result.

The Spider-Man titles have been ignoring one another for years, in order to let their creative teams pursue completely unrelated stories without even token acknowledgement of events in other books. The real reason why this is happening is because Marvel consider the ground rules of the book a nuisance. But the ground rules still apply, both because they linger in reader expectations and because Marvel know full well that it's popular with readers.

And if you apply the (ignored) ground rules to the stories being published, what conclusion do you reach? The stories have no consequences, therefore the events must be inconsequential. Consciously or otherwise, any reader attempting to apply the ostensible rules of the game to the stories being published will unavoidably reach this view. You can only avoid it by disapplying the rules to an extent that goes way beyond ignoring continuity nitpicks and amounts to shutting down the 'shared universe' premise altogether. Turn continuity off, and you can do whatever you want. But the halfway house of the last few years simply doesn't work.

Why do readers want to see ramifications in this sort of book? Because the ground rules of the series logically demand that they should be there. Is that limiting to creators? Yes, but there are better ways of getting around the problem - such as setting the story outside continuity so that it can do what it wants. Marvel won't do that because they're trying to appeal to an audience who like the ground rules, so they're nominally applying them but ignoring everything that logically ought to flow from that. It's hardly surprising if readers complain about the results.

Paul O'Brien is the author of the weekly X-AXIS comics review.

This article is Ideological Freeware. The author grants permission for its reproduction and redistribution by private individuals on condition that the author and source of the article are clearly shown, no charge is made, and the whole article is reproduced intact, including this notice.