Retroactive first appearances

[Leoparis]

Characters falling in that category include Mysterio, Misty Knight, Jessica Jones, Kro and Eternals (Makkari, Sersi, Zuras, Thena, Phastos).

My view is that Mysterio first appeared in ASM 13, Misty Knight in Marvel Premiere 21, Jessica Jones in Alias 1.

ASM 2, MTU 1 and ASM 4 are retroactive.

As shown below, we're not consistent.

MYSTERIO/QUENTIN BECK/"NICHOLAS MACABE"/"DR. LUDWIG RINEHART"
SM:MM 3 (16:2)-FB
WTSM 1-FB
DD2 7-FB
ASM5 1-FB
ASM3 1.1
WOSM2 4-FB
ASM 2/2 |cf PPSSM 51|
PPSSM 51-FB
WOSM2 4
{ASM 13-FB}

KNIGHT, MERCEDES "MISTY"
UTSM 8-BTS
{M/TU 1}
DD@5 1
ASM 123-BTS | cf MARVELS 10TH ANNIVERSARY EDITION
DHKF 33/2 (15:3)-FB
DOD 4 (9:1 - 11:4)-FB
IF 6 (4:5)-FB-FB
PM&IF 59 (11:5)-FB
DOD 4 (11:5 - 12:3)-FB
IF 6 (4:6)-FB-FB
PM&IF 59 (11:6)-FB
DOD 4 (12:4 - 12:5)-FB
IF 6 (4:7)-FB-FB
PM&IF 59 (13:3)-FB
DHKF 33/2 (16:2)-FB
DHKF 33/2 (17:2)-FB
CX 2/2
M/PRM 21

instead of
M/TU 1 | cf M/TU 64
...
{M/PRM 21}

JONES, JESSICA (born CAMBELL)
ALIAS 22
{ASM 4 (1 - 12)}
ASM 601/2-FB
ASM 4 (13 - 21)
ALIAS 23
JJ 6-FB
ALIAS 25-FB
ALIAS 26-FB
PULSE 14 (7 - 19)-FB
NA 47 (5 - 8)-FB-FB
ALIAS 1

Which I would mark this way:
ASM 4 | cf ASM 601/2
...
{ALIAS 1}

See also Phastos, Thena and Zuras, which are all consistent.
PHASTOS/"VULCAN"/"PHILLIP STOSS"
E4 4-FB
RRAVENC 1/3 | cf M/U 6
{E2 1}

THENA/"MINERVA"/"ATHENA ELIOT" (nee AZURA)
WI? 29/2
RRAVENC 1/3 | cf M/U 6
{E 5}

ZURAS/"JUPITER"
...
T 287-FB
RRAVENC 1/3 | cf M/U 6
{E 5}

I'm divided for Eternals such as Makkari and Sersi because their names are so close to Mercury and Circe and it is understood from their first official appearance who they're supposed to be. This is particularly the case for Sersi, who mentions turning men into pigs in E 3 and then recounts meetings with Ulysses and Merlin in E 4. This is less obvious for identifying Mercury from Red Raven Comics 1 with Makkari.

Kro is an original creation and I would keep his first appearance as E 1.

[Midnighter]

The discriminating factor, I understand, is between characters who had another identity in their first appearance (Mysterio, the various Eternals), for whom the cross-reference to the issue in which their true identity is revealed is given, and those who instead appear in their common identity even if not named (although they are not recognizable until explicitly told).
From a "creative" point of view, I agree with the discourse that those indicated cannot be considered the true first appearances of the relevant characters, but from a chronological point of view there is no cross-reference to be made to explain why a character appears in normal guise. Such cross-references are used only when there is a different identity than usual.

[RobinHoodMtl]

I do not have Handbooks at hand, but how does Marvel define their respective first appearance? I know that Official Index to Spider-Man establishes that Mysterio's first appearance was in ASM 2/2 even if he was not identified as such until much later. Shouldn't we side with official documents when it comes to 1st appearances?

I get that in their first appearances, some of those characters, particularly for Jessica Jones or Mysterio, were clearly not intended to become important characters at the time the story was created. Same goes for Jason Ionello, just to name another, who got a name decades after he first appeared in the early ASM series. Without the later stories, it's really hard to establish in which ASM issue he should be listed based only on the color of his hair. And I'm pretty sure we can find many more examples like this. Although it's cleverly entertaining when Marvel decides to make such connections with characters who were totally insignificant when they first appeared, it does bring up a few white hairs when it comes to establish a chronology. But we cannot ignore what official stories, retcons or reference books establish as 1st appearances.

I'm just throwing a idea here, but maybe MCU could establish another kind of marker to indicate the first appearance of a character under an unknown identity, like double braces {{ }} or any other combination of symbols.

[Leoparis]

From a "creative" point of view, I agree with the discourse that those indicated cannot be considered the true first appearances of the relevant characters, but from a chronological point of view there is no cross-reference to be made to explain why a character appears in normal guise. Such cross-references are used only when there is a different identity than usual.

If I read you correctly you distinguish two categories.

Those who appeared in a different identity and you would a cf for these.

Those who started as anonymous faces in the crowd. And you would not add a cf for these.

I fail to see the point of distinguishing between these. In both cases a later writer decided to tie an earlier anonymous or lesser-known character to a famous character created without any thought to the earlier one.

What I mean is that, if Kirby had meant for his Eternals characters to be those in Mercury or Hurricane, if Tony Isabella had meant for Misty to be the woman in MTU 1, or if Bendis had meant for Jessica to be the face in ASM 4, or if Lee had intended for Mysterio to have been one of the aliens in ASM 2, that would be different.

Kurt Busiek starting from two faces in the Flash gang and creating Jason Ionello and Sally Avril is a different situation. This was intended from the beginning. It doesn't follow the process I outline here:

Typically, what I mean by retroactive first appearances is something usually done in three steps:
A character is created, even if only visually;
Another character is created by the same or a different creator;
A third creator ties the two together.

As far as I can see more thought could be given to this type of characters as current handbooks lack a coherent or sensible approach.
Our system where we reference all three steps is the most comprehensive one.

PHASTOS/"VULCAN"/"PHILLIP STOSS" (the name used is that of the second step)
E4 4-FB
RRAVENC 1/3 | cf M/U 6 first and third step tied by a cf reference
{E2 1} second step, the actual creation of the character with the name used in the index

[Midnighter]

I fail to see the point of distinguishing between these. In both cases a later writer decided to tie an earlier anonymous or lesser-known character to a famous character created without any thought to the earlier one.

What I mean is that, if Kirby had meant for his Eternals characters to be those in Mercury or Hurricane, if Tony Isabella had meant for Misty to be the woman in MTU 1, or if Bendis had meant for Jessica to be the face in ASM 4, or if Lee had intended for Mysterio to have been one of the aliens in ASM 2, that would be different.

Kurt Busiek starting from two faces in the Flash gang and creating Jason Ionello and Sally Avril is a different situation. This was intended from the beginning. It doesn't follow the process I outline here:

Typically, what I mean by retroactive first appearances is something usually done in three steps:
A character is created, even if only visually;
Another character is created by the same or a different creator;
A third creator ties the two together.

As far as I can see more thought could be given to this type of characters as current handbooks lack a coherent or sensible approach.
Our system where we reference all three steps is the most comprehensive one.

PHASTOS/"VULCAN"/"PHILLIP STOSS" (the name used is that of the second step)
E4 4-FB
RRAVENC 1/3 | cf M/U 6 first and third step tied by a cf reference
{E2 1} second step, the actual creation of the character with the name used in the index

Yes, I understand your point. But you are thinking from a "creative" point of view, about what authors had in mind.
From the point of view of a simple listing of appearances of a character, this isn't so relevant.
There are many instances of characters appearing in the crowd and only at a later moment are recognized and named. One example is Kamala Khan in CM6 14 where she was a background character.
Or countless X-Men characters who start as multiple anonymous extras and then acquire a name and a background: 'latest in this sense is Curse, for example, who has been around since Marauders 1 but only received a name in Cable 1 and a background in X-Men Unlimited Infinity Comic. In these cases, these are conscious choices by the authors, but for chronological order, the authors' intentions matter to us relatively. If Gerry Duggan had not picked up the character after Marauders and another author later retrieved her by giving her another name, her first appearance would always have been Marauders 1.
What I mean is that the cross-reference with the story in which his presence is revealed is probably superfluous when the character is not disguised and has not assumed a different identity that is revealed only in that later story.
I understand that from a creative point of view it is not correct to designate as a first appearance one that is recognized as such only in "retrospect," after the character is created. But this is a distinction that has to do with the creative process and the intentions of the authors, not with what is seen on the page, and should be taken as "canon."
In principle, authors' intentions should not be considered over "evidence" in print. So if Misty Knight appears in M/TU 1 that is her first published chronological appearance, even if she was not identified until later. In an eventual character sheet, it would be to indicate as first appearance M/PRM 20 (actual) and M/TU 1 (recognized later).
P.S.: If I'm not mistaken, it was Bendis himself who identified Jessica as Peter's companion depicted in ASM 4 (I believe in a backup story to ASM 601, but I'm going from memory)

[Leoparis]

Actually, I'm thinking about "character" not about "creative."

All of Makkari's appearances are indexed under Makkari even though Hurricane & Mercury were feature characters. If it was really continuous from his first chronological publication, it would be something like
MERCURY
X3 12-FB
E3 4 (15)-FB
RRAVENC 1/3 | cf M/U 6
M/PROJECT 5
See HURRICANE

HURRICANE
from MERCURY
{CAC 1/5} | cf M/U 6
CAC 2/5
CAC 3/6
CAC 4/6
CAC 5/7
CAC 6/6
CAC 7/4
M/PROJECT 6
CAC 8/5
CAC 9/5
CAC 10/5
CAC 11/3
See MAKKARI

MAKKARI
from HURRICANE
ST 67/3 | cf MU 5
TOS 7/5 | cf MU 4
M/U 4
M/U 5
M/U 6
M/U 7
M/:LG 2
M/:LG 5
M/:LG 12-BTS | cf. OHOTMU GOLDEN AGE
E 5

The X-Men examples you give are only in two steps (visual appearance, naming) they do not follow the three steps I outlined, they're not retroactive first appearances.

Consider the following scenario: If someone were to comb the Timely or Atlas magazines to find a gypsy sorceror and then write a story establishing that gypsy sorceror to be Victor Von Doom, Dr Doom's first appearance would now be some obscure Timely/Atlas magazine rather than FF 4.

I find that unsettling and so do I for ignoring the retroactive aspect.

[loki]

I do not have Handbooks at hand, but how does Marvel define their respective first appearance? I know that Official Index to Spider-Man establishes that Mysterio's first appearance was in ASM 2/2 even if he was not identified as such until much later. Shouldn't we side with official documents when it comes to 1st appearances?

I get that in their first appearances, some of those characters, particularly for Jessica Jones or Mysterio, were clearly not intended to become important characters at the time the story was created. Same goes for Jason Ionello, just to name another, who got a name decades after he first appeared in the early ASM series. Without the later stories, it's really hard to establish in which ASM issue he should be listed based only on the color of his hair. And I'm pretty sure we can find many more examples like this. Although it's cleverly entertaining when Marvel decides to make such connections with characters who were totally insignificant when they first appeared, it does bring up a few white hairs when it comes to establish a chronology. But we cannot ignore what official stories, retcons or reference books establish as 1st appearances.

I'm just throwing a idea here, but maybe MCU could establish another kind of marker to indicate the first appearance of a character under an unknown identity, like double braces {{ }} or any other combination of symbols.

The handbooks haven't been as consistent with this kind of thing as we possibly should have been - a result of having multiple writers who don't always fully match up how we do things, despite our best efforts, combined with evolving and refining how we profile things over the years. Nowadays we'll try and break down the first appearance info as much as possible.

Though it's clearly up to the MCP staffers to ultimately decide, I would personally lean towards your suggestion of picking a new symbol combination (be they double braces or something else) to distinguish retconned appearances that pre-date the actual first appearance.

Depending on how you view things, there might be considered to be a few different types of this retcon first appearance. One is tricky in terms of deciding whether the revealed first appearance counts as a retcon, to whit when a character is introduced but they are either kept obscured from the reader or just a minor background individual, only to be later revisited and developed. Examples of this would be the Isolationist, introduced in shadows in 1993, then forgotten about until 2007 (fairly sure PAD admitted he didn't plan for the character to be the Isolationist back then, but when he came up with the concept of the character in the 2000s he realized he could tie it back to the shadowy guy he'd introduced in original X-Factor), and all the minor players in Spider-Man's origin story who were later revisited over the years - not just Sally Avril, but the little kid who saw Peter climbing a wall, the security guard Baxter Bigelow, etc. The intention from the outset was that these were the same characters we met previously, even if it was decades after the fact. That might also include Jessica Jones, assuming Bendis knew from the outset which background "extra" he intended her to be back in ASM 4. In these instances I'd argue the first appearance info is just that, and not the tale where they were revisited and made more prominent to the overall narrative.

The other version is when a character is introduced, and then later it is revealed that another character introduced earlier is the same person. The new character wasn't intended from the outset to be the other, prior character. Sometimes the earlier character was an "extra" - Misty Knight or Mysterio. Sometimes it was a more prominent individual now retconned to merge them into another, even bigger, character - Makkari, Sersi, etc. It might be argued that the Roderick Kingsley Hobgoblin is also an example of this - iirc, when Hobgoblin was introduced, the writers hadn't yet decided who he was really intended to be.

[ShadZ]

It might be argued that the Roderick Kingsley Hobgoblin is also an example of this - iirc, when Hobgoblin was introduced, the writers hadn't yet decided who he was really intended to be.

According to a Roger Stern quote on Hobgoblin's Wikipedia page, Stern did not know who Hobgoblin was at the time the plot for the first issue was completed and handed over to John Romita, Jr. -- but Stern did decide that Hobgoblin was Roderick Kingsley during the scripting process, after getting the art back. So it was decided before the issue was published. (Later it was undecided and then redecided, but that's a different story!)