Born Again

[Antonio Gaviño]

There you go.
By the way, Nick Manolis appears on panel 7 of page 17 in DD 230, not panel 6.

[michel]

Corrected, thank you!

[Leoparis]

Manolis is also in DD 230 (16:4)-FB.
By the way, is there a reason we cannot index those three panels as DD 230 (16 - 17)-FB or leave them as 230-FB like it used to be?
When we index Obnoxio as ABCD 87, it means he appears on some pages of issue 87, not necessarily from the first to the last panel.

And if the rule is to index by strict panel appearance when we add an indication, then DD 230 (14:4 - 22)-OP should be (14:4)-OP.
DD 230 shifts between various scenes. The hospital where Manolis is murdered is a secondary setting and does not appear after panel 14:4. There is also a church where Matt recovers, the bar where Foggy meets Karen, the floor where Kingpin parties. It is very odd to have Manolis off panel from 14:4 to the end of the issue, especially as he's dead. Because of that line, I was looking for him later than 14:4.

[Russ Chappell]

Manolis is also in DD 230 (16:4)-FB.
By the way, is there a reason we cannot index those three panels as DD 230 (16 - 17)-FB or leave them as 230-FB like it used to be?

Let me preface my comments by saying I do not have DD 230 in front of me. I can only respond to your questions as they're written, in general terms.

We cannot leave it like it used to be. A character can appear in any number of flashbacks within an issue, and they would receive a simple, single FB line in the listings (such as DD 230-FB), AS LONG AS:
1) no other appearances come either between or inside any of those flashbacks; AND
2) the flashbacks are in sequential order

However, once we fail either of these tests, we break down the pages, and we break down all of them.

What that means:
Let's say a character appears in four separate flashbacks of DD 230, page (3), page (7), page (11), and page (15). The flashbacks occur in that order. The character makes no appearances anywhere else, between these flashbacks.

We can say: DD 230-FB

If the flashbacks occur out of order, we break them down individually:

DD 230 (7)-FB
DD 230 (3)-FB
DD 230 (11)-FB
DD 230 (15)-FB

If the character appears anywhere else among the flashbacks, we break them down individually:

DD 230 (3)-FB
DD 229
DD 230 (7)-FB
DD 230 (11)-FB
DD 230 (15)-FB

And if the rule is to index by strict panel appearance when we add an indication, then DD 230 (14:4 - 22)-OP should be (14:4)-OP.
DD 230 shifts between various scenes. The hospital where Manolis is murdered is a secondary setting and does not appear after panel 14:4. There is also a church where Matt recovers, the bar where Foggy meets Karen, the floor where Kingpin parties. It is very odd to have Manolis off panel from 14:4 to the end of the issue, especially as he's dead. Because of that line, I was looking for him later than 14:4.

This is a much trickier question, but I'll try.

The rule is not to "index by strict panel appearance when we add an indication." Let's say page 11 is a flashback, and our character appears only in panels 1 and 5 of page 11. A strict interpretation of your condition would require us to list like so:

DD 230 (7)-FB
DD 230 (11:1)-FB
DD 230 (11:5)-FB
DD 230 (15)-FB

The process that I've been following recently, is to follow the skeletons laid out by Paul, Fury and michel. When they have a page breakdown, that breakdown is an "act", similar to a play or television episode. An act may consist of several scenes, but nothing else is breaking up that "act." For instance, michel might have the following:

BLUE THUNDER SQUAD 12 (1 - 5)
HELIUM GIRL 5
BLUE THUNDER SQUAD 12 (6 - 23)

Helium Girl 5 consists of one act. Blue Thunder Squad 12 consists of two acts. Pages 6 - 13 might focus exclusively on team member Dyna-Girl, and take place in New York City. Pages 14 - 23 might take place two weeks later, and focus on her boyfriend Flatulence Lad's trip to London. Even though these are two distinct scenes, separated by significant time, it's one act. If both characters appear in all three of the segments above, both of them would receive the same listing (as above).

You might be horrified by that--that I would imply that Dyna-Girl appears in the entire segment from pages 6 -23, and likewise for Flatulence Lad--but that's the way I treat it.

[Leoparis]

The Manolis flashbacks are in sequential order and he does not appear anywhere else between them.

For the second point, I will make the answer its own thread as this is indeed much trickier and touches on the way the OP tag has evolved.

[michel]

Manolis is also in DD 230 (16:4)-FB.

It's exactly DD 230 (14:2)

[Russ Chappell]

The Manolis flashbacks are in sequential order and he does not appear anywhere else between them.

Again, I don't have the books in front of me, so am relying on previous posts.

MANOLIS, LT. NICK
...
DD 227
DD 229
DD 230 (4:5 - 4:6)-FB <-- ADD
DD 230 (1 - 14:3)
DD 230-FB --> CHANGE TO DD 230 (17:1)-FB
DD 230 (17:7)-FB <-- ADD
DD 230 (14:4 - 22) --> CHANGE TO DD 230 (14:4 - 22)-OP

You say that Manolis does not appear anywhere else between the flashbacks, but michel says he appears in DD 230 (1 - 14:3) between the first and second flashback.

[Leoparis]

And we've gone over this already.

The only flashback in 230 is the inside flashback to Manolis's murder.

I got that. But I think the other characters have caught up with the Kingpin's timeline in those pages. Extracting half a page is odd. When modern cartoonists want to set a sequence apart from the main flow, it usually falls on a full page or with a design that sets it apart from other sequences (black bleed, wavy borders, monochromatic or faded coloring, etc.). Mazzuchelli not only uses the same layout as the top half but keeps to a horizontal design in surrounding pages. Visually it communicates that these are all concurrent and in sequence.

Actually, you have the Kingpin asking to locate Nuke on page 6, the page after Karen arrives in New York, then thinking on page 16 it took days to find out that Nuke was in Nicaragua. If Karen had to wait some days to escape Paulo's attention to call Foggy, if Ben stays a little bit at home before going back to the Bugle, then yes there's no need for a FB in DD 230.

.

Antonio, we've been discussing your post between directors.
...
So, to not force an unnatural flashback, we can use a method we rarely use: "unhook" one portion of a book from others
...
If we assume the timeline of the Kingpin is back in line with the timelines of the other characters at the beginning of DD 230, then the general timeline can read:
DD 228 (1 - 21)
DD 228 (22)
DD 229 (1 - 21)
DD 228 (21)
DD 229 (22)
DD 230

There is nothing pointing to 4:5 - 4:6 being a flashback. I made a point that all characters had caught up with Kingpin's timeline by page 2. Earlier, Michel had a different, longer timeline (15 days instead of eleven) where half-pages of issue 230 were turned into flashbacks to accomodate this longer timeline.
I explained my 11 days timeline (from Dec 22 to Jan 2) and pointed to a date on page 3 that had been missed.
And I thought this had been settled after Antonio commented there was no need to interpret issue 229 as a flashback.

But OK, I guess my points did not get across, not fully. And I should have looked more closely at the proposed listings even when it seemed my points were acknowledged.

As I am understandably tired of this, I will wait until corrections are entered and start a new thread, hoping everybody will still be in an open and responsive disposition to revise the listings.

[Russ Chappell]

And we've gone over this already.

The only flashback in 230 is the inside flashback to Manolis's murder.

I got that. But I think the other characters have caught up with the Kingpin's timeline in those pages. Extracting half a page is odd. When modern cartoonists want to set a sequence apart from the main flow, it usually falls on a full page or with a design that sets it apart from other sequences (black bleed, wavy borders, monochromatic or faded coloring, etc.). Mazzuchelli not only uses the same layout as the top half but keeps to a horizontal design in surrounding pages. Visually it communicates that these are all concurrent and in sequence.

Actually, you have the Kingpin asking to locate Nuke on page 6, the page after Karen arrives in New York, then thinking on page 16 it took days to find out that Nuke was in Nicaragua. If Karen had to wait some days to escape Paulo's attention to call Foggy, if Ben stays a little bit at home before going back to the Bugle, then yes there's no need for a FB in DD 230.

.

Antonio, we've been discussing your post between directors.
...
So, to not force an unnatural flashback, we can use a method we rarely use: "unhook" one portion of a book from others
...
If we assume the timeline of the Kingpin is back in line with the timelines of the other characters at the beginning of DD 230, then the general timeline can read:
DD 228 (1 - 21)
DD 228 (22)
DD 229 (1 - 21)
DD 228 (21)
DD 229 (22)
DD 230

And I thought this had been settled after Antonio commented there was no need to interpret issue 229 as a flashback.

I'm lost. I don't know what flashbacks in DD 229 have to do with flashbacks in DD 230.

Let me put it this way. In my post of 11/2 at 9:15 pm, I was attempting to answer a question you had posted on 11/2 at 5:57 pm, about the flashbacks in DD 230.

In my post of 11/3 at 6:41 pm, I quoted a post from michel that he made on 10/16 at 5:25 am. The only post you made after that (11/2, 5:57 pm) was to add yet another flashback to DD 230.

The posts that you're quoting above are from well before michel's adjusted chronology of 10/16. I was going by the most recent discussion of the chronology of DD 230.

I've attempted to answer your original question about why Manolis can't be listed as appearing in "DD 230-FB".

[michel]

There is nothing pointing to 4:5 - 4:6 being a flashback. I made a point that all characters had caught up with Kingpin's timeline by page 2. Earlier, Michel had a different, longer timeline (15 days instead of eleven) where half-pages of issue 230 were turned into flashbacks to accomodate this longer timeline.
I explained my 11 days timeline (from Dec 22 to Jan 2) and pointed to a date on page 3 that had been missed.
And I thought this had been settled after Antonio commented there was no need to interpret issue 229 as a flashback.

I've agreed that the first half of DD 230 wasn't a FB, but with the exception of DD 230 (4:5 - 4 :6)-FB: it shows nurses attending to Urich and Manolis after the nurse agressed them in DD 229 on Christmas' eve, it can't happen on January the 2nd, no?

[Leoparis]

Yes, it's quite likely that the parking scene with Manolis and Urich takes place on Christmas Eve while Foggy signing the contract above is on Jan 2. That's also how understand it.

But that's creating a flashback by inference. The scene is written in the present.
You could make other inferences to restore the chronology such as either one of these:
Example 1: The contract signed by Foggy is postdated because for legal reasons they could not have it signed during the holidays or during the previous legal year.
Example 2: More time passes between the moment where Manolis says his boy is going under the knife and the time he's announced his death. As in, the first operation (on Christmas Eve) went well but the boy had a later complication (ca Jan. 2) that killed him.

But none of these are part of my reasoning.

An assumption in indexing superhero comic is that there is a feature character and the story centers around them. A flashback would often be in relation to the present of the feature character. But when writers treat supporting characters as feature characters of their own in some issues (Kate, Lucky in Matt Fraction's Hawkeye) we lose this single point of reference, there are now multiple points of reference and there can be more than one present (as in ensemble cast movies or TV series where each character thread is in the present but a chronological examination would show the scenes could not have happened in the order presented).

In Born Again each of the supporting characters has a narrative arc of their own: Foggy finding sentimental and professional success, Karen escaping her prostitution life, Urich investigating Matt's downfall, Kingpin seeing his plan unravel. (And note that each of them has their own supporting characters: Glorianna, Paulo, Urich's boss Robertson and wife Doris, Wesley.) Their stories develop independently and only intersect later. So each time we see them, we are in the present (even if their present does not line up with other characters' present).

Kingpin is the example all agreed on. He sends Murdock to his death, then finds out 11 days later there is no body. He appears in DD 228 then 229 then 230. Originally you wrote Matt getting out of the water on the last page of 228 as a flashback and all of issue 229 as a flashback. The point was made that issue 229 is written in the present and not as a flashback.

It's the same for Urich: he appears sequentially in 229 then in 230. Whenever we visit each character in these independent threads, we are in the present. The only parts written as a flashback in 230 are the first page and Manolis dying.

(As for panel 16:4, yes it's a repeated panel but repeating panels is a way of indicating a long time and the second time the panel appears we have added text confirming the passage of time, "I swear it took forever." But I don't mind if you think it's the same panel, I'm just clarifying my viewpoint.)