Looking up our own
Despite my first claim to "fame" being a self-published zine in the ’80s called INSIDE JOKE, I admit to having a limited tolerance for deconstruction and meta-winks in storytelling. To me that sort of linking and meta-footnoting belongs in essay-writing and blogging; in fiction, more often than not it becomes a form of cultural cannibalism largely practiced by creators (a) with only a surface knowledge of comics history who believe it’s cooler to point back to a story which readers recall fondly than to come up with original story ideas themselves, or (b) who believe not so much in writing stories as in structuring gags which they’re betting will amuse their audience and editors as much as the setups and punchlines amuse themselves.
I can understand the impetus. The more experienced you are as a writer, the more you need to keep up your own interest in your work. That’s why many writers enjoy experimenting with different storytelling formats, like starting the action in media res or recounting events backwards. They need to keep from getting bored, and they hope that their readers will also appreciate them shaking up expectations a little. And when it works in service to the story, it’s a treat to note all the different kinds of ways a tale can be spun. But the problem is that these kinds of tricks, when overdone, often become more about the writer than about the story.