In some cases, it is impossible to tell, short of reading the author's mind. (An interpretation violated this way is said to be Jossed.) Most competent writers achieve a retcon by relying on a less-obvious but still perfectly valid interpretation of what was previously seen.Īs the number of twists and misdirections in a story becomes higher, it becomes more difficult to tell whether an event actually is a retcon (which implies that the writers changed their minds), or a misdirection (which implies that the writers intended the "retconned" version all along, and had been deliberately misleading the audience before). Perhaps more often, the retcon does not actually violate Canon, but rather violates Fanon, the set of unstated interpretations usually made by the audience.
Violated heroine wiki jungle boss series#
The retcon is considered by many to occur when current events contradict the past continuity of the series and is evidence of a Writer on Board. (In other words, No Prize it into plausibility and away from the dizzying realm of the Ass Pull.) Smoother retcons won't be distinguishable as such, and can even make what was initially an Ass Pull later look like everything was Just As Planned. A good way to get away with a retcon is to reveal new implications or motivations for events that have already been established. Some but not all retcons are Ass Pulls, and a good retcon can actually improve the current narrative. See also Ass Pull, which is something that was not properly set up before it is sprung on the audience. In Marvel Comics, the person who pointed out the problem and at the same time provided a plausible explanation was awarded a Genuine Marvel Comics No-Prize by editor Stan Lee, a tradition that was kept alive by other editors after he became publisher. Often, it's used to serve a new plot by changing its context however, it's also done when the creators are caught writing a story that violates continuity and isn't very plausible. While the term comes from comic books, dating to All-Star Squadron #18 in 1983 and shortened to "retcon" by the end of the decade, the technique is much older. The most preferred use is where it contradicts nothing, even though it was changed later on. In its most basic form, this is any plot point that was not intended from the beginning. The ideal retcon clarifies a question alluded to without adding excessive new questions. When the inserted events work with what was previously stated, it's a Revision when they outright replace it, it's a Rewrite. Reframing past events to serve a current plot need.