••

A lot of different layers to that question, and its answer(s).

First, of course, the circumstances of the mandate are important. At one end of the spectrum, we may have a penciler who has not quite generated "on model" versions of the characters, and the assigned inker is asked to correct this to whatever degree is deemed necessary. There can be different reasons for this. Perhaps the penciler "phoned it in". Sometimes, people are just there fore the paycheck. Perhaps the penciler was "riding to the rescue" of a late book, but was not fully familiar with the characters and was not provided adequate reference. Perhaps the characters have simply changed substantially since the last time the penciler drew them. Or, out of that same mold, perhaps this was an "inventory" story that had lain in the editor's drawer for a while, and, while being perfectly accurate when done, is not any more. In any of those instances, the penciler is not likely to mind (or care) that the work is being changed.

Unfortunately, those are not the only "settings" on this particular dial. As in the case of the Jean/FF story, again, we had something that had been approved on all levels and was ready to go to the printer, when the work was suddenly deemed "incorrect" and had to be changed. In that case, the changes had nothing to do with the quality of the work.

Then there can be cases where there is an editorial change in the middle of the production of a story. Myself, I have often argued that when that happens it behooves the new editor to simply "ride it out" until the previously approved material has been finished. Then s/he can take a more firm hand at the wheel, if such is felt necessary. Sadly, there are only a small handful of editors who operate that way, and I have actually witnessed writers being compelled to completely rework their stories to fit the new editorial "vision".

••

For me, the first time that turned up I would put the book down and not return. That is so incredibly BASIC to the story being told.

Would you continue reading with constant references to "Stan Lea" and/or "Jack Kurby"?

It's one of those red flags I find so often, when I read about things with which I am acquainted. The stuff I know about, the writers get wrong. So what does that say about the stuff I DON'T know about?

••

Isn't that pretty much a given, with "tell all" books like this?

Heck, isn't that the reason so many people read them? They want to find out that Joe Schmoe beat his wife, not that he ran a home for lost puppies. I think of my own experiences, where my "good deeds" may get mentioned but quickly fade on the cyberwind, while "bad deeds" (especially those that are entirely invented) have infinite shelf life.