I love Perch as a commentator, but I don’t completely agree with him on this issue. I agree with him about the way King wrote Guy Gardiner, Chance, and Ice in issue #6, but I think many of the other series/characters he didn’t like from King in the past were well done.
That being said, I am curious to see how King does with his romance comic deconstruction on substack. Second issue was definitely more interesting than the first, but we’ll see how it goes from there!
A very interesting post from Tom King about this exact question:
TLDR: he says there’s three kinds. 1) Not continuity (Sandman, Sheriff of Babylon). 2) Future/AU - not continuity. 3) Possibly continuity if readers and other writers like it enough (Killing Joke, his own stories).
Interestingly, King says that he thinks that his stuff COULD be canon, but it doesn’t have to be unless other writers want to use it.
I like to think its up to us.
If continuity is only continuity when it’s convenient, then it doesn’t really matter. This is the reason why DC has had so many reboots and restructures of their own continuity.
That’s not what King’s saying at all. He’s saying it’s organic and grows based on reader and writer reaction.
Are people reaction about canonical lore based on human target #6. I like Human target but I think Guy Gardner is still alive in the DC universe because I swore they mention him a while back in the green lantern book. Although it would be pretty interesting for cannon considering Maxwell lord is apparently not in the international era anymore or the fact Martian Manhunter had a relationship with Fire.
It’s sorta why I like Tom King because his creative choices like the one I listed above here have interesting implications for the dc universe and it’s characters.
There are tons of reactions. King wrote the essay because people want to know if it’s “canon”. And King’s answer is “it could be if you like it”. But I think it’s unlikely that it’s canon.