How do you know the people who complained about needing it explained to them are the same ones complaining that the existence of an explanation proves that it sucks?
I’m of the latter camp for example in thinking that if it requires this much outside explanation, annotations and preliminary reading just to be understood then it fails. However I’m not of the former camp of ever asking anyone to explain it to me as I felt the 7 issues I read were so lacking in entertainment value, so disjointed in narrative and so in love with it’s own metatextual aspirations that I had no desire to have it explained to me. I just chalked it up as an ambitious but ultimately failed narrative experiment for a crossover event and moved on. (However I do not think it failed as a cult book for Morrison junkies.
