Børn fra fremtiden.

Hvordan ved man om man er geek eller man bare helt almindelig fyr med småinteresser for tegneserier, computere, Sci-Fi og Fantasy?

Jeg fik en meget god pejling forleden.

Hjemmesiden Major Spoilers, som er en af de helt tunge drenge når det gælder blogs, podcast og anden internet interaktivitet om tegneserier og anden pop/geek kultur, havde i deres podcast fra 22 jan en ophedet diskution om børn af superhelte og hvorfor de små "buggers" altid rejser rundt i tiden.
Diskutionen endte med at værterne startede en lignenede diskution i deres forum på bloggen, og udlovede en præmie til bedste og mest oplysnede indlæg.

Nerd, nerd, nerd.

Men mærkeligt dragende og vinderen af konkurrencen blev.........
Din trofaste MitEkstraLiv skriben - MIG!

Her er indlægget i uredigeret udgave. Nu venter jeg bare på sweet, sweet loot.

Might not be the most funny reply, but i think that if you are gonna have children of heros in a book they just need to be from the future.
It's all about the inhereted paradox in comics that you have linear continuity but the heros can't get older!
At least not at normal speed.
So if you introduce a kid (like Franklin Richards) this paradox gets more obvius.
A grown up child like Cable can just jump right in to continuity like the rest of the heros.
This came to my some time ago when i got back to reading comics after like a seven years break. It was soo wierd to see that the whole DC and Marvel univers had followed the time.Cars, buildings, clothes ect had moved along and the heros had been throu all sort of adventures. But they hadn't grown up the sligthest bit???
Hadn't gotten older or wiser or anything!
Sooo timetraveling kids are really the leser of the evils for us fans - I think.
Becaurse if you are a "regular" comic reader, and only read comics a set amount of years, kids of heros works ok. Becaurse the paradox isn't obvius to you. If on the other hand you are a real comic fan, and you hold on to your interest for years and years, children who never grow up make the paradox seems so much more obvius. And thus anoying.